LIBRARY
Michlgan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

TO AVOID FINES return on or before due due.

    

T :DAIE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

If“

\“u/ 2 9 200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fil—H I

MSU is An Affinnetive ActioniEquai Opportunity institution

 

 

 

Warns-9.1

'—————

 

AESTHETICS AND PRAGMATICS IN HUMAN ECOLOGICAL THEORY
DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY THERAPY: JANUSIAN,
HOMOSPATIAL, AND ARTICULATION PROCESSES
IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
By

William Henry Abler

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology

1992

ABSTRACT
AESTHETICS AND PRAGMATICS IN HUMAN ECOLOGICAL THEORY
DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY THERAPY: JANUSIAN,
HOMOSPATIAL AND ARTICULATION PROCESSES
IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
By

William Henry Abler

Human ecologists and marital and family therapists engage in theoretical, perceptual, and
intervention activities in which the ability to conceive, manipulate, integrate, and creatively
transform the operation of parts within wholes and wholes within parts and their myriad
interrelationships is essential to excellence or superior outcomes. The purpose of this study was
to examine the presence of J anusian, Homospatial, and Articulation processes in the systemic and
ecosystemic thinking and related products and outcomes among marital and family therapists and
human ecologists in training at the doctoral level.

As our world grows progressively more complex, solutions to major ecological and
family system problems will require the ability to think in an integrative, creative manner. At
present, little is known about the processes involved in seminal or germinal thinking within these
two fields. Since Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation process thinking have proven to be
operative processes among acknowledged experts within the arts and sciences, evidence of their
presence among doctoral candidates specializing in family studies and marital and family therapy
may provide an important focus for professional training and further research.

This study was an exploratory, experimental, two-group design investigation of the
presence and effects of Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation process thinking among 37

Michigan State University doctoral level students engaged in theory development and intervention

strategies. Data collection consisted of a variety of written tasks completed within a controlled
setting. These tasks included creation of a series of metaphors in response to visual stimuli and
a 13-item self-administered questionnaire addressing demographic items and self-perception of
creativity.

The results of this study indicate that persons exposed to Homospatial triggers produce
a greater total number of metaphors, a greater number of integrated metaphors, and the depth of
the content of their metaphors is greater in Holonic emphases. Participants enrolled in the Family
Studies program created a greater total number of initial metaphors than their Marital and Family
Therapy counterparts. Family Studies students also created metaphors with greater depth in terms
of Holonic emphases while Marital and Family Therapy students created more integrated

problem-oriented metaphors.

Copyright by
William H. Abler

1992

To Sue

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the love and support provided by many people within my
family, my Doctoral Committee, my Department, and a loosely-knitted group of wonderful others
who deepened and enriched my academic journey.

FAMILY

My family gave me so much more than the precious gift of membership. My wife, Sue,
and son, Patrick, were the lights guiding me through countless dark nights. My parents provided
me with the tools necessary to fashion a caring response toward the worlds of people and ideas
and feelings and images. My brothers and sisters: Kathy, Margie, Tim, Julie, David, Janie,
Alice, Jim and their spouses, partners, and children continue to teach me how to integrate theory
and practice in the conduct of family life (they will also be delighted to learn that "Bill has finally
gotten out of schooll"). My parents-in-law, Leo and Marie, were extraordinarily generous in
their willingness to be there for us at all hours and in every conceivable circumstance. My
brothers and sister-in-law, Maureen, Gerry, Joe, Brian and their spouses, partners, and children
offered their fine good humor, support, and instrumental aid of various kinds every step of the
way. Finally, many of my multigenerational family members nurtured an insatiable thirst for
knowledge but lacked the resources and support with which I was blessed in accessing advanced
formal education. Their legacy is particularly rich and meaningful.

DOC'I‘ORAL COMMITTEE
My Committee gave me the precious gift of their time and the freedom to follow my own

path. Don Melcer encouraged me to think broadly, see deeply, and celebrate a shared

vi

appreciation for the transcendant. His sensitivity and faith in my commitment never wavered.
Linda Nelson, whose affinity for detail is the stuff of legend, tirelessly insisted I had something
meaningful to say. She gave most freely of her time, space, and energy in order to help me find
my own voice. Anne Soderman provided strong encouragement and support as I struggled to
keep numerous conceptual balls in the air, simultaneously. Gersh Kaufman’s positive presence
and rich work in shame theory and the concept of the "interpersonal bridge" was extremely
helpful in my efforts to formulate conceptual linkages within and across multiple disciplines and
perspectives.
OTHER KEY SUPPORTERS

Chris Oberg’s creativity and skill in assisting in the development of the images employed
in this research were indispensible. Mike Keefe was extraordinarily helpful in providing
methodological and statistical guidance and consultation at all hours of the day and night. Don
Hamachek provided wise counsel that enabled me to position my ladder toward personal, familial,
and academic growth and development. Through the creation of the Human Ecological Model,
Margaret Bubolz and Sue Sontag provided me with a conceptual home in which I always felt free
to move the furniture at will. Dolores Borland gently reminded me of the importance of self-care
and limit-setting on the path toward personal and professional development. Other faculty and
staff in the Department of Family and Child Ecology modeled the primacy of family in the
conduct of academic life.

Robert Griffore and Lillian Phenice made fellowships and other forms of Departmental
support available to me and Lawrence Schiamberg provided teaching and research assistantship
opportunities that enabled me to achieve my academic and personal survival goals and objectives.
The Eugene O. Peisner Scholarship and a Departmental Dissertation Fellowship were also
invaluable in helping to defray some of the costs of conducting this research.

Marilyn Rothert, Judy Michael, Kathy Moor and other members of the Michigan State

vii

University Health Promotion Program made assistantships available to me and provided yet
another academic home in which caring and respect were a given.

My cherished friends and cohorts in the doctoral program freely offered their strength,
good humor, commitment to a shared dream, and a generous willingness to serve as participants
in this study.

Finally, I am indebted to Albert Rothenberg, whose seminal work in Janusian,
Homospatial, and Articulation processes resonates throughout the design and execution of this

work.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................ xii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................... xiv
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................... 1
Art and Aesthetics as a Way .................................. 2

Partite Perceptions ........................................ 3

A New Model ........................................... 8

Scope of the Problem ...................................... 10
Statement of the Problem ................................... 10
Significance and Generalizability ............................... 11
CHAPTER 11: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................ 12
Rothenberg’s Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation Processes ........... 14
Janusian Process ................................... 15

Homospatial Process ................................. 16

Articulation Process ................................. 17

Metaphor ............................................. 19

Out of Sorts ...................................... 20

Experimental Testing of Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation Processes . . . . 24

The Holon ....................................... 27
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY .................................. 33
Research Design ........................................ 33

ix

Questions ........................................ 34
Variables ........................................ 35
Instrumentation ......................................... 36
Data Collection ....................... j .................. 38
Limitations and Assumptions ................................. 45
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................... 47
Questionnaire Content ..................................... 47
Socio-Demographic Data .............................. 48
Self-Perception of Creativity ............................ 49

Essay Content .......................................... 57
Metaphor Data .................................... 58
Analysis of Metaphors ..................................... 6]
Defining a Metaphor: A Matter of Life and Death .............. 66
Integration as the Better Part of Discretion ................... 72

Assigning Holonic Emphases: A Dialogue Between Parts and Wholes . . 79

Summary ............................................. 92
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS ............ 94

Inextricable Relations ..................................... 96

Implications for Further Research .............................. 98

Reflections ............................................ 100

Epilogue ............................................. 102
APPENDICIES

A. Model of Rothenberg’s "Mutually Creative Process of Psychotherapy" ..... 105

B. Holonic Perception Rating Sheet ............................ 106

C. Color Xerox Copy of Slide Set 1 (Janusian Condition) ............... 107
D. Color Xerox Copy of Slide 1 (Homospatial Condition) .............. 108
E. Color Xerox Copy of Slide Set 5 (Janusian Condition) ............... 109
F. Color Xerox Copy of Slide 5 (Homospatial Condition) ............... 110
G. Introductory Letter to Prospective Participants .................... 111
H. Participant Response Form ................................ 112
I. Consent Form ........................................ 113
J. Metaphors Created in Response to Slide Set 1 (J anusian Condition) ....... 114
K. Metaphors Created in Response to Slide 1 (Homospatial Condition) ...... 115
L. Metaphors Created in Response to Slide Set 5 (J anusian Condition) ....... 117
M. Metaphors Created in Response to Slide 5 (Homospatial Condition) ...... 118
LIST OF REFERENCES ........................................ 119

xi

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

LIST OF TABLES

Questionnaire Content ................................
Program Status by Group and Program ......................
Gender by Group and Program ..........................
Self-Perception of Creativity by Group and Program .............

Self-Perceptions of Expressivity, Skill, and
Utilization in Theory and Practice ....................

Areas of Creative Expression by Group and Program .............
Areas of High Skill by Group and Program ...................
Skills Useful in Theoretical Work by Group and Program ..........

Skills Useful in Intervention Work by Group and Program ..........

Perceived Differently from Others as a Child by Group and Program . . .

Enjoy Working With Parts Within Wholes and Wholes Within
Parts by Group and Program .......................

Responses to Metaphor-Related Items by Group ................
Responses to Metaphor-Related Items by Program ...............
Frequency of Metaphors per Question by Group ................

Initial Responses to Request to Create a Problem-Oriented
Metaphor (Question 4) by Slide/Slide Set and Group ........

Initial Responses to Request to Create a Solution-Oriented
Metaphor (Question 5) by Slide/Slide Set and Group ........

Initial Responses to Request to Create a Problem-Oriented
Metaphor (Question 4) by Slide/Slide Set and Program .......

xii

47

48

51

52

53

55

56

57

58

S9

60

61

64

18.

19.
20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Initial Responses to Request to Create a Solution-Oriented
Metaphor (Question 5) by Slide/Slide Set and Program .......

Discrete and Integrated Metaphors by Group ..................
Type of First Problem-Oriented Metaphor Created (Question 4)
by Slide/Slide Set and Group .......................

Type of First Solution-Oriented Metaphor Created (Question 5)
by Slide/Slide Set and Group .......................

Type of First Problem-Oriented Metaphor Created (Question 4)
by Slide/Slide Set and Program ......................

Type of First Solution-Oriented Metaphor Created (Question 5)
By Slide/Slide Set and Program .....................

Breakdown of Holonic Emphases by Group ...................

Breakdown of Holonic Emphases for First Problem—Oriented Metaphor
(Question 4) by Slide/Slide Set and Group ...............

Breakdown of Holonic Emphases for First Solution-Oriented Metaphor
(Question 5) by Slide/Slide Set and Group ...............

Breakdown of Holonic Emphases for First Problem—Oriented Metaphor
(Question 4) by Slide/Slide Set and Program .............

Breakdown of Holonic Emphases for First Solution-Oriented Metaphor
(Question 5) by Slide/Slide Set and Program .............

xiii

65

74

75

76

77

86

87

88

LIST OF FIGURES

Conceptual Model .................................. 37
Content of Images Employed in Study ...................... 39
Breakdown of Experimental Groups and Program Specializations ..... 40

Form of Rothenberg’s Experimental Studies with Visual Artists
and Poets ................................... 43

Form of Present Study’s Experimental Analysis with Doctoral
Candidates in Family Studies and Marital and Family Therapy . . 49

Criteria for Coding Type of Metaphors in Janusian Condition ....... 73

Criteria for Coding Type of Metaphors in Homospatial Condition ..... 73

xiv

To see the World in a Grain of Sand
and a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand

and Eternity in an hour.

William Blake

Auggries of Innocence

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Literature within the fields of marital and family therapy and human and family ecology is
replete with an essential imperative: study the individual in relation to the environment or the
contexts within which the individual is embedded (See Chapter 2). In theory, this appears
eminently reasonable and commonsensical. However, operationalizing it is no small task within
a culture where individuals are trained since birth to perceive themselves, other persons, and the
physical environment as wholly separate entities. Ironically, it is within the context of the major
focus of these professions itself--the family--that this process actually begins. The emphasis on
distinctions between self and other becomes further entrenched within the educational system, the
media, and in everyday human intercourse. Theorists and therapists toiling in their respective
fields are themselves products of these influences and may, therefore, be poorly equipped to
grapple with the enormous complexity inherent in family systems and human ecological problems.

While some may be able to transcend the limitations imposed by these influences, for others the

2

ability to see may be seriously impaired. Further, the definitions, tools, measurements, and
procedures available to them are cumbersome and imprecise and their colleagues in the so-called
hard sciences remain skeptical, at best. It would seem that some direction out of this dilemma,

and perhaps some relief, may be found within the realm of art and aesthetics.

Art and Aesthetics as a Way

Since the dawn of human consciousness, the production and appreciation of art have been
integrative processes concerned with uniting form (or structure) and content as well as both
perceiving and fashioning meaning through the creation of new patterns and relationships. A
veritable universe of possible processes and outcomes are at the disposal of the creative artist and
the aesthetician. Artists, in fact, have been both esteemed and reviled for their clarity of vision,
their ability to see things others fail to see, their facility in penetrating beneath the surface of
appearances, and their skill in conjoining inner and outer perception and experience in the
creation of something entirely new. Indeed, much to the consternation of conservative political
structures throughout the world, artists have a long and colorful history of anticipating,
articulating, and mobilizing cultural shifts toward new directions, values, and meanings. Artists
also spend their lives developing and refining their ability to perceive and integrate disparate
elements ever more clearly and efficiently. In reviewing a recent biography of John Ruskin,
British art critic and social theorist, Simon (1991) cites Ruskin’s celebration of the process of
seeing:

Like Emerson, Ruskin celebrated seeing as the most significant human activity.

The greatest thing a human soul ever does in this world, Ruskin wrote, is to &

something, and tell what it m in a plain way. . . . To see clearly is poetry,
prophecy, and religion—all in one (p. 148).

3

This sweeping richness, potency, and power of art has not gone unnoticed within the
therapeutic community. A significant amount of theoretical work has addressed the multiplicity
of ways in which the conduct of therapy is a creative, artistic enterprise and the practice of art
a metaphor, an analog, or a model for the practice of therapy. The two disciplines, art and
therapy, are perhaps most fully integrated in practice in the form of art therapy where the
creation and assessment of art products are emphasized in the advancement of therapeutic goals
and objectives. However, these modes of thinking about therapy and doing therapy offer little
in the way of increasing our understanding of precisely what therapists see, particularly family
therapists, how deeply they see, and how comprehemively they see in their assessment and
intervention work with clients. The same may also be said of human ecologists. Their concern
for addressing the essential fittedness of all things is unmistakably aesthetic in nature. Yet, we

know very little of the shape and form their perceptions generally assume.

Partite Perceptions

For all individuals, but perhaps most particularly artists, family therapists, and human
ecologists, the ability to make clear distinctions between self and other, me and not—me has proven
to be an integral part of their growth and development as persons and professionals. However,
while the ability to discriminate is essential to the formation of self and individuality, an
exorbitant price is paid in failing to realize that this process was meant to be a means toward an
end, rather than an end in itself. An exorbitant price is also paid when this priority invades every
aspect of human experience. And, an exorbitant price is paid when individuals and families come
to feel and believe that this is both normal and the way it should be for human beings and their
relationship to the social-cultural environment, the human-built environment, and the natural

environment (Bubolz & Sontag, in press). Indeed, by late adolescence, many have become fully

4

grounded in a partite perception of our world. Upon hearing that perhaps there is another way
of seeing and experiencing the human condition-a means of synthesis, integration,
complementarity, alternation, interconnectedness-many find it of some intellectual interest. Yet,
it is often rather difficult to feel it in our bones. It strikes us as strange or unnatural. And, it
seems impractical somehow in a world in which everyone else is seeing the so-called normal way.
The problem is further compounded when considering who it is that advocates such a radical
change in perception and experience, e.g., Eastern philosophers, mystics, religious leaders,
theologians, artists, human ecologists, and family therapists, many of whom are dismissed for
their emphasis on qualitative attitudes, perceptions, and concerns.

It would seem, then, that the ability to separate and discriminate between subject and
object, self and other, inner and outer, figure and ground, part and whole serves us particularly
well in our early years, but hinders later growth and development. Great difficulty is experienced
in putting it all together. We stumble and falter in our efforts to see and think systemically,
ecosystemically, holistically, ecologically. By professional role definition, however, human
ecologists and marital and family therapists are charged with tasks related to correcting this
deficiency. Models of human ecology generally present multiple elements operating in an
interactive fashion, simultaneously, e.g., earth, air, water, plant and animal life, human beings
and their various roles, communication patterns, power structures, values (Andrews, Bubolz, &
Paolucci, 1980; Boyden, 1986; Bubolz, Eicher, & Sontag, 1979; Bubolz & Sontag, 1988; Bubolz
& Sontag, in press; Herrin & Wright, 1988; Jungen, 1986; Kantor & Lehr, 1975; Moran &
Sawyers, 1988; Ray, 1988; Wright & Herrin, 1988a, 1988b, 1988c; Young, 1989). For
illustrative purposes, each is presented within its own respective space surrounded by lines
demarcating the boundaries and interfaces of each element. In the real world, however, these
boundaries do not, in fact, exist. Warren (1978), a perceptual ecologist, speaks to this issue quite

eloquently:

5

What is out there, the environment, is unbounded, and perceptual experience
should also be unbounded--as opposed merely to reflecting the unboundedness.
Koffka (1935, p. 178) claimed that he could see his table underneath his book.
Merleau-Ponty (1945) stated that: Our visual field is not neatly cut out of our
objective world, and is not a fragment with sharp edges like the landscape framed
by the window. We see as far as our hold on things extends, far beyond the
zone of clear vision, and even behind us. When we reach the limits of the visual
field, we do not pass from vision to non-vision (p. 277) (p. 16).

Water, therefore, does not end where land begins. Neither are thoughts clearly separated
from feelings or power structures from communication patterns. Thus, although serving useful
purposes, in many important ways these models do not capture the essence of either objective or
subjective reality. They do not capture the essential embeddedness of these elements. Each is,
in a very real sense, contained within each other. Grof (Capra, 1988) provides a beautiful
illustration of these themes, blending the wisdom of Buddhism, recent discoveries in quantum
physics, and the evocative power of metaphor:

A wave can be viewed as an individual entity, and yet it is obvious that the wave

is the ocean and the ocean is the wave. There is no ultimate separation...The

next stage in this metaphoric thinking (he continued) would be a wave that hits

the rocky shore and withdraws again but leaves a small pool of tidal water. It

may take a long time until the next wave comes and reclaims the water that was

left there. During that time, the tidal pool is a separate entity, and yet it is an

extension of the ocean which, eventually, will return to its source (pp. 107-108)

Grof continues by describing the process and outcome of evaporation:

Imagine water evaporating and forming a cloud. Now the original unity is

obscured and concealed by an actual transformation, and it takes some knowledge

of physics to realize that the cloud is the ocean and the ocean is the cloud. Yet
the water in the cloud will eventually reunite with the ocean in the form of rain

(p. 108).

Similarly, in marital and family therapy we find models of treatment and process and
outcome research emphasizing multiple members within the family as the primary unit of analysis
(Bednar, Burlingame, & Masters, 1988; Constantine, 1986; Grunebaum & Chasin, 1982;
Gurman, Kniskem, & Pinsof, 1986; Haley, 1962, 1967b; Handel, 1967; Keeney, 1983b; Klein,

1981; Kramer, 1980; Moon, Dillon, & Sprenkle, 1990; Schwartzman, 1984; Steier, 1985;

6
Taggart, 1985; Tom, 1983). It is generally the ongoing patterned sequences of behavior within

a family system that are considered of paramount importance. Tracking these patterns effectively
within the context of treatment, however, can be exceedingly difficult. Indeed, Stanton and
Stanton (1983) have asserted that a single therapist experiences difficulty tracking more than one
or two dimensions simultaneously. While their proposal that a team approach permits a
multidimensional view of family patterns, the introduction of a treatment team into the equation
adds yet another level of complexity.

Tracking these patterns within the context of research presents similar challenges:

Researchers in the field of family therapy have had difficulty grappling with the
complexity of family therapy; they have tended to handle complexity by
simplifying it. Their research efforts have focused on presenting symptoms and
terminal outcomes in identified patients rather than addressing the multiple
perspectives and recursive interactions suggested by systemic family therapy
theory (Bednar, Burlingame, & Masters, 1988; Gurman, Kniskem, & Pinsof,
1986; Schwartzman, 1984; Tom, 1983). As noted by Steier (1985), qualitative
research methods may be more effective than quantitative ones in grappling with
the full complexity of systems theory. Like systems theory, qualitative research
emphasizes social context, multiple perspectives, complexity, individual
differences, circular causality, recursion, and holism. Qualitative methods
provide an avenue for examining the experience of family therapy from the
perspective of the client rather than from the more typical research perspectives
of the therapist and/or researcher (Kuehl, Newfield, & Joanning, 1990;
Newfield, Kuehl, Joanning, & Quinn, in press). Because the qualitative
paradigm emphasizes social contexts, it may help to answer the feminist call for
a greater appreciation for contextual issues in systemic therapy (T aggart, 1985).
As Todd and Stanton (1983) have noted, "life and research are inevitably
messy," (p. 14). Research is especially "messy" in a field like family therapy
which is concerned with complex, systemic change in human beings. Qualitative
research designs may provide a systematic, scientific way of looking at therapy
holistically, with all of its "messiness" intact (Moon, Dillon, & Sprenkle, 1990,
p. 364).

These challenges are further intensified within the contexts of expanded models of family
assessment and treatment such as multiple family therapy (Laqueur, 1972a, 1972b) as well as in

the supervision of family therapists.

7

Ironically, in recent years, some members of the family therapy profession have lamented
the apparent loss of the individual in the family equation. The field had, quite literally, lost sight
of the individual in its emphasis on system dynamics:

We realized we had gone from the frying pan into the fire, that is, from

psychoanalytic reductionism, which disjoins the individual from his interactions,

to holistic reductionism, which disjoins the system (family) from its individual

members. Indeed, so wary had we been in the past of explicitly focusing on the

individual, his intentions and aims, that for lack of "real, live people" we found

we needed to "personify" the system, endowing it with all the intentions and

finalities of which we had so carefully dispossessed the individuals! The system,

then, would be the one to request therapy, to resist change, and so on (Palazzoli,

Cirillo, Selvini, & Sorrentino, 1989, p. 260).

Rather than maintaining an either-or approach to individual and system functioning, some feminist
approaches to family therapy (Wheeler, Avis, Miller, & Chaney, 1989) seek a balanced blending
of the two within the contexts of treatment, training, and supervision:

Individual well-being and family well-being are equally important in feminist

family therapy. Consequently, when individual and family needs conflict, the

family should not necessarily be supported at the expense of the individual. For

example, if a woman returns to school or work, this may threaten family

stability. The feminist family therapist would support such a shift in structure

and distribution of functions (pp. 139—140).

Within the fields of both human ecology and marital and family therapy, then, it is
assumed that professionals see fundamental embeddedness. Or, it is assumed that professionals
in these fields at least embrace this concept. Yet, no formalized attempts have been made to
study whether these assumptions are valid. What do human and family ecologists and marital
and family therapists actually see when confronted with problems presented by an individual, a
family, or a larger organization of some kind? Is there a range or continuum in their ability to
see systemically or holistically? For those whose ability is exceptionally high--do limitations in
language make it particularly difficult to articulate this particular way of seeing? How is it that

they go about thinking and perceiving in an integrative manner? How do they meaningfully and

effectively track the vast multiplicity of interactions within and across numerous systems and

8

subsystems? Do they share particular perceptual skills or abilities that enable them to see
interrelations, connections, linkages, patterns, and process? How is it that these individuals
escaped or transcended a predominately partite perception of our world?

If these capacities and abilities are, in fact, learned, perhaps our task as theoreticians and
clinicians is not to unlearn our old habitual way of seeing, but to develop and promote its
complement. It is here that the artist and aesthetician may guide us. While artists and clinicians
alike have written extensively about the importance of learning to see or perceive in new ways,
and, in some instances, have developed techniques to facilitate shifts in perception, several
questions remain unclear:

1. Is practice alone sufficient to facilitate creative, perceptual shifts?

2. Will disuse result in failure to see certain things or in certain ways?

3. Once one has learned to see in new ways, can this new vision be activated at will or
will it function as a new, permanent lens through which one will thereafter perceive the world?

4. Do alternative ways of seeing serve temporary transformative functions (e. g. , accessing
right brain capacity during artistic creation) or can alternative ways of seeing be seen as on
ongoing process?

The latter half of this last question may, in fact, be analogous to the Hegelian dialectic in which
movement from thesis to antithesis is continually directed toward a new synthesis (Basseches,

1984; Riegel, 1976; Rychlak, 1976).

A New Model

Partial answers to these many questions may be discovered through an examination of

selected elements of a model of psychotherapy in which art, aesthetics, and creativity figure most

prominently. According to Rothenberg (1979, 1988a, 1988b) the most creative individuals within

9

the arts and sciences engage in three interrelated cognitive processes in the production of creative
outcomes or effects: (a) the Janusian process; (b) the Homospatial process; and (c) the
Articulation process. Janusian process is defined as the active conceiving of two or more
opposites or antitheses, simultaneously. The Homospatial process involves actively conceiving
two or more discrete entities occupying the same space, a conception leading to the articulation
of new identities. Finally, the Articulation process includes J anusian and Homospatial processes
and involves actively joining one element with another within many different dimensions (e.g.,
conceptual, perceptual, volitional, affective, and physical) in the creation of a product that is
simultaneously separate or distinct and connected to other elements.

Although Rothenberg has experimentally tested for the presence of these processes among
visual artists (Rothenberg, 1986; Rothenberg & Sobel, 1981a; Sobel and Rothenberg, 1980),
writers (Rothenberg & Sobel, 19803, 1980b; Rothenberg & Sobel, 1981b), and scientists and
mathemeticians (Rothenberg, 1982), he has not tested individually-oriented therapists, family
therapists, or human ecologists. Based on his examination of the published works of selected
individual and family therapists, however, he has asserted that these three processes are operative
in their work. Family therapists cited by Rothenberg (1988a) include those who emphasize
employment of paradoxical interventions within the conduct of their work with families: Erickson
and Rossi, 1976; Erickson, Rossi, and Rossi, 1976; Haley, 1962, 1967a, 1973, 1976, 1980,
1984; Madanes, 1980; Papp, 1980; Selvini-Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, and Prata, 1978;
Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch, 1974; Weeks and L’Abate, 1979; and Wynne, 1980. This
study, therefore, sought to extend Rothenberg’s theories into untested domains--specifically,

family and child ecologists and marital and family therapists in-training.

10
Scope of the Problem

Graduate programs throughout the United States purport to train advanced graduate
students in human and family ecology and marital and family therapy to think, see, and problem-
solve systemically or ecosystemically. It is assumed that, upon graduation, these students are
able to see fundamental embeddedness in the conduct of their professional work and formulate
theoretical models and practical interventions that reflect a predominately contextual orientation.
Yet, no formalized attempts have been made to study whether these assumptions are valid.

This research involved the creation of innovative instruments and protocols designed to
measure several highly elusive constructs. These constructs may, in turn, promote the
development of effective measures of creative, systemic, and ecosystemic thinking ability among
prospective and matriculating graduate students in family studies and marital and family therapy.
A secondary outcome may be the development of materials useful in training students to think

systemically and ecosystemically.

Statement of the Problem

Human ecologists and marital and family therapists engage in theoretical, perceptual, and
intervention activities in which the ability to conceive, manipulate, integrate, and creatively
transform the operation of parts within wholes and wholes within parts and their myriad
interrelationships is essential to excellence or superior outcomes. The purpose of this study was
to examine the presence of J anusian, Homospatial, and Articulation processes in the systemic and
ecosystemic thinking and related products and outcomes among doctoral-level students in family

studies and marital and family therapy.

l 1
Significance and Generalizability

As our world grows progressively more complex, solutions to major ecological and
family system problems will require the ability to think in an integrative, creative manner. At
present, little is known about the processes involved in seminal or germinal thinking within these
two fields. Since Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation process thinking have proven to be
operative processes among acknowledged experts within the arts and sciences, evidence of their
presence among doctoral candidates in family studies and marital and family therapy may provide

an important focus for professional training and further research.

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Numerous theorists in the field of human ecology have written of the importance of
systems thinking--seeing the individual operating within the context of a wider system of family
members, as well as church, school, state, the natural environment, and numerous other
dimensions. These theorists include Andrews et al. (1980); Bateson (1972, 1979); Boulding
(1978); Boyden (1986); Bronfenbrenner (1974, 1977, 1979, 1986); Bubolz et al. (1979); Bubolz
and Sontag (1988); Bubolz and Sontag (in-press); Capra (1982; 1983; 1988); Carpenter (1986,
1989); Fox (1980); Herrin and Wright (1988); Hook and Paolucci (1970); Melson (1980);
Milbrath (1989); Portmann (1969); Sawyers and Moran (1985); Shepard (1969); Vayda, 1983;
Westney, Brabble, and Edwards (1988); Wright and Herrin (1988a, 1988b, 1988c). Many
scholars and practitioners in marital and family theory and therapy have also addressed these
issues (Auerswald, 1971, 1985; Aylmer, 1986; Beavers, 1977; Boszormenyi-Nagy & Spark,
1984; Boszormenyi-Nagy & Ulrich, 1981; Bowen, 1971, 1974, 1978; Constantine, 1987; Duhl,
1983; Emery, 1969; Grunebaum & Chasin, 1982; Humphrey & Benjamin, 1986; Keeney, 1983a,
1983b; Keeney & Ross, 1985; Keeney & Sprenkle, 1982; Kerr, 1988; Kramer, 1980; Miller,
Rollins & Thomas, 1982; Minuchin, 1985; Minuchin & Fishman, 1981; Mook, 1985; Nichols,
1987; Palazzoli, Cirillo, Selvini & Sorrentino, 1989; Sabatelli & Mazor, 1985; Satir, 1972;
Skynner, 1976).

Numerous tools and techniques have also been developed to promote adoption of this
multi—contextual approach to perception and intervention activities. The genogram (Guerin &

Pendagast, 1976; Lieberman, 1979; McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985; Pendagast & Sherman, 1977;

12

13
Stierlin, Wirsching & Weber, 1982) ecomap (Hartman, 1978, 1979; Wedemeyer & Grotevant,

1982), and the family sculpting technique (Duhl, Kantor & Duhl, 1973; Holman, 1983; Papp,
Silverstein & Carter, 1973) are three frequently used tools in the field of marital and family
assessment and therapy. While change has generally been the primary objective of these efforts,
emphasis has been variously placed upon pragmatic strategies designed to initiate change solely
(Haley, 1977; Watzlawick, 1976; Watzlawick, Bavelas & Jackson, 1967; Watzlawick et al.,
1974), interventions emphasizing understanding as a precursor to change or, more recently, the
promulgation of an aesthetic base for change at both macro and micro levels (Allman, 1982a,
1982b; Bateson, 1972; Dell, 1981; Dohr, 1984; Falzer, 1986; Hoffman, 1981; Jordan, 1985;
Keeney, 1983a; Keeney & Sprenkle, 1982; Papp, 1980; Selvini-Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, &
Prata, 1980; Watzlawick, 1982).

Within each of these three broad rubrics, multiple competing paradigms have emerged,
each grappling with the enormity of an inordinately complex universe of phenomena. Each also
strives to differentiate itself from other models or incorporate and revise selected elements for
its own use. Thus, we have a multiplicity of family therapies emphasizing different approaches
to treatment. Gurman and Kniskem (1981) have identified 13 models or schools of family
therapy. Psychoanalytic and object relations approaches include Skynner’s (1981) Open-Systems,
Group Analytic Therapy and Sager’s (1981) Couples Therapy. Intergenerational approaches
include Boszormenyi-Nagy’s (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Spark, 1984) Contextual Family Therapy,
Bowen’s (1978) Family Systems Theory and Therapy, Framo’s (1981) Family of Origin, and
Whitaker’s (Whitaker & Keith, 1981) Symbolic-Experiential Family Therapy. Systems theory
approaches include various Structural (Aponte & VanDeusen, 1981) Strategic (Stanton, 1981),
Interactional (Bodin, 1981), Functional (Barton & Alexander, 1981), Integrative (Duhl & Duhl,

1979), and Problem-Centered (Epstein & Bishop, 1981) therapies. A number of Behavioral

14

approaches (Heiman, LoPiccolo, & LoPiccolo, 1981; Jacobson, 1981) have also been developed
to address the treatment needs of families.

Family therapists and researchers operating within each of these approaches share a
burden that may be seen to dissolve the various theoretical and applied differences among them.
Olson (1981) speaks to this issue:

What both groups fail to realize is that the family is one of the most complex

systems to adequately describe and understand. As the late Margaret Mead once

stated: "A family is tougher to work with than an individual and tougher than a

whole culture. It is probably m toughest thing that you can prepare anybody to

do therapy or research in." Because of the complexity of the family, it will take
a more unified and cooperative approach to adequately understand these systems

(p. 75).

Rothenberg’s Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation Processes

The search for knowledge and understanding within the fields of human ecology and
marital and family therapy has served to broaden and enrich both disciplines immeasurably.
However, an alarm has recently been sounded. Some writers have noted that in the quest to
move from a narrow, linear, Newtonian, individualistically-oriented paradigm toward a more
holistic, organismic, circular, Einsteinian world view, a rather ironic price has been paid. The
individual has been lost in the search for systemic knowledge. A paradigm shift has occurred
such that the treatment may be as virulent as the disease it was designed to eradicate.
Paradoxically, focusing solely on systemic processes renders a narrow, fragmented, incomplete
picture of reality. A reasonable response to this state of affairs would be the attempt to see the
individual functioning within multiple contexts simultaneously--the individual at once separate
and connected, part and whole, differentiated and‘integrated. Rothenberg’s (1988a) modcluthe
mutually creative process of psychotherapy—comprising Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation

processes appears to possess this requisite blending. It has the descriptive and prescriptive power

15

to embrace, incorporate, and transform micro and macro issues both simultaneously and in

alternating, dialectical fashion.

1mm

Rothenberg (1988a) took the name for the J anusian process from the Roman god Janus,
the "god of entryways and doorways" (p. 11), who possessed the ability to see in multiple
opposite directions, simultaneously. Thus, Janus could see both inside and outside, backward and
forward at one and the same time. Similarly, in the Janusian process, multiple opposites or
antitheses are conceived, simultaneously. These opposites are seen to be at once true and not
true. For example, a person running and standing still, simultaneously; kindness and sadism
expressed simultaneously; a chemical boiling and freezing, simultaneously; certain laws and
beliefs considered both valid and invalid, simultaneously.

According to Rothenberg (1988a; 1988b), the Janusian process occurs during all three
stages of the creative process (early, middle and late) and the process itself is comprised of three
parts: (a) recognizing and choosing salient opposites and antitheses in scientific, cultural, or
aesthetic fields; (b) conceptualizing these opposites operating simultaneously; and (c) development
of new creations. Thus, in the Janusian process, whether one’s task at hand is developing a
theoretical model, painting a landscape or working with a client in therapy, opposite ideas or
concepts are deliberately and consciously conceptualized side-by-side and seen to coexist,
simultaneously. The outcome of these efforts is generally reworked and refined later in the form
of a final created product. The Janusian process itself, however, is typically experienced as
highly stimulating, rewarding, and meaningful. Indeed, the idea that a person falling from the
roof of a house was both in motion and at rest at the same time was characterized by Einstein as

"the happiest thought of my life" (Rothenberg, 1988a, p. 14). Einstein and Bohr both employed

16

the Janusian process in the development of the general theory of relativity and the theory of

complementarity, respectively (Rothenberg, 1987).

Homospatial Process

The term Homospatial is derived from a blending of the Greek homoios, meaning same
and space. Thus, Homospatial refers to the same space--specifically, two or more entities
operating within the same space. Once again, Homospatial process is defined as actively
conceiving two or more discrete entities occupying the same space, a conception leading to the
articulation of new identities.

According to Rothenberg (1988b), Homospatial process is a specific, creative, cognitive
function in which a creative person consciously and deliberately "brings together images and
sensory representations into the same mentally represented space" (p. 444). Visual, auditory,
tactile, olfactory, gustatory, or kinaesthetic sensory modalities may serve as the sources of these
images and representations and multiple types of mental imagery may be brought together,
simultaneously. The outcome of this process tends to be transitory and hazy because: (a) the
resulting conception has no corresponding equivalent in physical reality; and (b) the discrete
elements overlap and conflict with each other. Ultimately, the Homospatial process serves as a
way station in the development of new structures and forms. This process may be seen to be
operative whether one’s creative energies are directed toward producing an original work of art,
formulating a complex scientific theory, or working with individuals and families in the conduct
of therapy.

Within a therapeutic context, the Homospatial process may assume a variety of forms,
e.g., the therapist may superimpose himself and the client within the same mental space or

conscious and unconscious material may be superimposed. Whatever the elements selected for

17

superimposition, the Homospatial process emphasizes the creation of something entirely new as
a consequence of integrating two or more disparate elements.

Rothenberg (1988a) makes the point that the Janusian process and the Homospatial
process are, to some extent, part of every creative therapist’s function and skill. He also
advocates further development of these functions and skills within the therapeutic community.
This research is guided, in part, by the belief that these two assertions would apply equally

appropriately to the functions and skills of creative human and family ecologists.

Articulation Prggss

The Articulation process is derived from meanings associated with clarity in
communication. An articulate person is one who is able to select and arrange individual words
into meaningful sentences—bring words together and keep them distinct at one and the same time.
It is a process of joining in which the individual parts retain their autonomy while becoming part
of a larger whole.

Rothenberg (1988a) notes that Articulation has a double-meaning. Technically, it means
to join but in the process of joining one element with another, a coming together and a separation
are produced at the same time. The function of the Articulation process, then, is to produce
tangible entities that are new and separate as well as connected to their forbears.

Not unlike the Janusian and Homospatial processes, the Articulation process occurs
throughout the process of creation within any field or discipline. Articulation is responsible for
the progression from emptiness or disarray to development of tangible order-~from an empty page
to a poemufrom a blank canvas to a painting. However, while the Janusian process may involve
a sudden flash of insight or awareness, the Articulation process is a long-term enterprise. It

includes the Janusian and Homospatial processes, it follows after the Janusian and Homospatial

18
processes, and it leads directly to a creative result. Indeed, the Janusian and Homospatial
processes are types of articulation. The former involves the articulation of propositional ideas
and the latter involves the articulation of mental imagery.

The Articulation process also shares with the Janusian and Homospatial processes an
emphasis on conscious, deliberate choice. For example, the client in therapy actively chooses
to adopt new patterns of behavior just as the artist actively chooses to produce new patterns and
forms. For his part, too, the therapist is actively engaged in making choices:

Focus on the Articulation process entails a type of concentration on the

therapist’s part that is receptive, wide-ranging and not persistently evaluative or

judgmental. Keeping in mind the dual goals of separating and bringing together,

the therapist is interested in encouraging the patient to speak and elaborate on

what he says and feels. Within this wealth of material, the therapist seeks to

separate out pertinent issues and trends largely by questions and other clarifying

interventions. Simultaneously, the therapist bears in mind possible analogies and
connections between what the patient is immediately addressing and other areas

of the patient’s life, past, present or future (Rothenberg, 1988a, p. 146).

Thus, the client is engaged in a struggle to break free from the past-to separate himself from it--
while at the same time bring himself into a new, more productive, meaningful continuity with
that same past.

J anusian, Homospatial, and Articulation processes function in concert. Janusian and
Homospatial thinking are methods or processes that facilitate the perception of patterns,
connections, linkages, relationships, and interactions while the Articulation process involves the
creating and building of these structures. Each process involves a separating and bringing
together of discrete elements in the creation of something new. Within the context of
psychotherapy, this something new may take the form of understanding, insight, and new
personality structures or attributes.

It is also important to note that the Janusian and Homospatial processes are abstract

(Rothenberg, 1988a). Simultaneous opposition is not present in the physical world. Neither can

two objects occupy the same space. However, within cognitive, affective, and spiritual

19

dimensions, these limitations are not operative. One can, for example, be both victim and

aggressor, separate and connected, individual and family.

Metaphor

Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation process thinking do appear to have much in
common with other types of thinking processes oriented toward integrative functions. These
types may include dialectical thinking within the context of family therapy (Bopp, 1981a, 1981b;
Bopp & Weeks, 1984; Boszormenyi-Nagy & Spark, 1984; Esterson, 1970; Weeks, 1977; Weeks
& L’Abate, 1982; Weeks & Wright, 1979) and within human development (Basseches, 1980,
1981, 1984; Hultsch, 1980; Riegel, 1973, 1976; Rychlak, 1976; Tolman, 1981, 1983), Gestalt
thinking (Kofflca, .1935), creative thinking (Gruber, Terrell, & Wertheimer, 1962; metaphorical
thinking (Billow, 1977; Samples, 1976; Turbayne, 1970), multidimensional thinking (Palazzoli,
Cirillo, Selvini & Sorrentino, 1989), ecological thinking (Milbrath, 1989) and systems thinking
(Kerr, 1981a; 1981b). Dialectical thinking, in particular, plays a prominent role in Rothenberg’s
work as many aspects of his model are dialectical in structure and process. For example, in the
Homospatial process, the two superimposed images continually interact with each other. In the
Articulation process, one is continually separating and bringing together key elements in the
creation of new entities. In both form and content, then, each element informs the other in an
ongoing process, neither operating apart from the other.

The creation of metaphors also figures prominently in Rothenberg’s (1988a) model. An
examination of metaphor’s definitional and conceptual complexities is indicated, however, prior

to a consideration of Rothenberg’s treatment of it.

20
t fS

Metaphor was held in particularly high esteem by the Greeks, as indicated by the
following statement by Aristotle: "The greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor. It is
the one thing that cannot be learned from others. It is the mark of genius" (Turbayne, 1970, p.
21). Aristotle was inclined to formulate his own definition of metaphor--a definition that has
stood the test of time. For him, metaphor was a form of sort-crossing:

Metaphor ("meta-phora") consists in giving the thing a name that belongs to

something else; the transference ("epi-phora") being either from genus to species,

or from species to genus, or from species to species, or on the grounds of

analogy. (Turbayne, 1970, p. 11)

Ryle’s (1949) more contemporary definition is remarkably similar to that of Aristotle’s: "It
represents the facts as if they belonged to one logical type or category (or range of types of
categories), when they actually belong to another" (p. 16). Turbayne (1970), an acknowledged
expert on metaphor, prefers this reworked version of Ryle’s definition: "The presentation of the
facts of one sort (or category) as if they belonged to another (or in the idioms appropriate to
another)" (p. 22).

Metaphors may actually be employed to define or illustrate metaphor. For example,
Burke (1945) asserts that it is a perspective that metaphor provides:

Metaphor is a device for seeing something in terms of something else. A

metaphor tells us something about one character considered from the point of

view of another character. And to consider A from the point of view of B is, of

course, to use B as a perspective upon A (pp. 503-04).

Just as there is no lack of definitions formulated for them, metaphors may be seen to
come in an infinitely varied number of shapes, sizes, and descriptions. There are literary

metaphors, visual metaphors, military metaphors, medical metaphors, to name only a few. They

may be short or long, simple or complex, intricate and detailed, or sweeping and broad. Thus,

21
a 700-page novel, a four-line limerick, a child’s fairy tale, a short story, a theoretical model, a
fable told by a therapist to a client, and an individual human life may each be metaphors.

Metaphors may also be non-verbal. Turbayne (1970) notes, for example, Michelangelo’s
use of Leda with the swan to illustrate the experience of rapture associated with physical passion
and Leda without the swan to illustrate the experience of agony associated with dying. Other
non-verbal metaphors may be teachers’ blackboard diagrams, scientists’ physical models, an
actor’s raised eyebrow used to illustrate the entire state of affairs operating in Denmark, toy
blocks arranged to represent a Civil War military confrontation (Rothenberg, 1988a). Turbayne
(1970) explains:

The use of metaphor involves the pretense that something is the case when it is

not. That pretense is involved is only sometimes disclosed by the author.

Descartes said: "I have hitherto described this earth, and generally the whole

visible world, as if it were merely a machine." But just as often metaphors come

unlabeled (pp. 13-14).

Thus, artists are generally not inclined to attach statements to their work announcing that certain
elements contained therein are metaphorical. A curious exception to this may be a black and
white drawing by Van Gogh. In this work, a nude woman is rendered with her head bowed and
cradled in her arms against both knees drawn up to her chest. She is most clearly depicted in
an attitude of all-consuming grief. However, in the lower right corner in a rather heavy,
calligraphic hand, the artist wrote the word "Sorrow." The addition of the word to the visual
image seems, to this investigator, quite unnecessary since sorrow permeates every aspect of the
picture plane.

Evaluating metaphors is known to present some formidable challenges. Thrbayne (1970)
has noted that a metaphor may be rated as good, bad, or a misuse of language according to its
cognitive content:

One metaphor is cognitively better than another if it lends itself better to

modeling than the other. Thus, to liken the human mind to a computer is a
better metaphor than to compare it with a book because in the former case, but

22

not in the latter, it is rather easy to see how one would go about constructing a

promising model of mental activities on the basis of the suggested similarities.

If this is so, then the metaphorical merit of utterances, and the features which

distinguish metaphor from non-sense should be analyzable in terms of the models

to which they give rise: a good metaphor is one which can be extended to a good

model (pp. 228-9).
For Black (1962), a good metaphor produces attitude shifts. It serves as a screen through which
the world is perceived. Further, it acts as a filter-emphasizing some facts and suppressing
others; "bringing forward aspects that might not be seen at all through another medium" (pp.
287-88).

According to Turbayne (1970), the life of a metaphor has three main stages: (a) assigning
a name that belongs to something else (since this is an inappropriate or unconventional use of
words, we are inclined to both affirm and deny the resultant duality of meaning-deny the
metaphor and affirm the literal truth); (b) the inappropriate name is accepted as a metaphor (we
knowingly succumb to make-believe—using the metaphor to highlight or illuminate hidden or
obscure facts); and (c) due perhaps to over-use, the model produced by the metaphor is now
mistaken for the thing modeled (we now believe what had formerly been make-believe). In this
last stage, the individual becomes a victim of metaphor. Rather than using metaphor, he or she
is used by it. This outcome is not unlike the consequence of forgetting that one has donned a
pair of sunglasses. The mask is mistaken for the face and a special view of the world is mistaken
for the world, itself. Or, stated differently, one view of the world is mistaken for the only view.
For Turbayne, at this stage in the life of the metaphor, the metaphor is no longer a living entity;
it is now "dead" (p. 25). Or, more precisely, it is no longer a metaphor.

The use of metaphors has been well documented in the fields of both human ecology
(Bateson, 1972, 1979; Carpenter, 1989; Henderson, 1978, 1981; Kelly, 1966, 1987) and marital
and family therapy (Andolfi, Angelo, Menghi, & Nicolo-Corigliano, 1983; Angelo, 1979; Cade,

1982; Duhl, 1983; Erickson & Rossi, 1979; Erickson et al., 1976; Gordon, 1978; Jordan, 1985;

23
Lankton & Lankton, 1986; Madanes, 1984; Napier, 1988). They have been used extensively in

the building of theoretical and applied models, illustrating elusive concepts, and healing emotional
pain. Metaphors have also been used in training family therapists to think systemically (Duhl,
1983, 1986). For Bateson (Capra, 1988), metaphor is a fundamental element in the process of
living and a primary expression of the human mind and human thinking: "That’s how this whole
fabric of mental interconnections holds together. Metaphor is right at the bottom of being alive"
(p. 77). Relationships among disparate elements, then, were the primary focus of Bateson’s work
and it was through metaphor that he most readily apprehended and illustrated his delight in "the
pattern which connects" (Capra, 1988, p. 81). Metaphor is "the language of nature and poets
alike" and "the logic upon which the entire living world is built" (Capra, 1988, p. 81). Further,
as perceived patterns in nature and metaphor become more complex, Bateson would find in them
both great beauty and elegance.

For Rothenberg (1988a, 1988b), the creation of metaphors is one of the primary functions
of the Homospatial process. This may not be surprising when one considers Stanford’s (1936)
emphasis on metaphor’s unique ability to achieve an "integration of diversities" (Turbayne, 1970,
p. 21). Rothenberg (1988a) elaborates:

Creation of effective metaphors is one of the prime functions of the homospatial
process. Multiple discrete entities are brought together into the same mentally
represented space and the resulting conception is articulated into metaphorical
phrases, e.g., "the road was a ribbon of moonlight," or more extensive
metaphors, e. g., the central image of a poem, or the character Hamlet in
Shakespeare’s play. The multiple discrete entities in the mental conception may
consist of sensory elements from either the same or different modalities.
Resulting metaphors may be of the verbal type found in poetry and other forms
of literature or they may be visual metaphors found in painting, sculpture,
architecture, or dance. Auditory or sound types of metaphors are created as
expressive factors in music and creative scientists develop conceptual types of
metaphors to serve in the building of theories and models... Examples of
conceptual metaphors are "black holes in space," "big bang," "big crunch,"
colored and flavored quarks, which have generated so much theory and data in
physics. Auditory metaphors consist of what Leonard Bernstein described as a
transformation into an equivalence; this involves an interaction relationship
among independent and discrete elements and patterns (pp. 38-39).

24
While Rothenberg (1988a) has not fully explored the applicability of his model to family

therapy, no attempt whatsoever has yet been made to examine its applicability to human and
family ecology theory development. However, his views on metaphor resonate quite strongly to
an ecosystemic orientation to both content and process domains:

Dissimilar or disparate objects are equated in a dynamic interaction with one

another, which heightens the appreciation of both. There is integration rather

than additive combination... The metaphor contains individually specified objects

that are integrated into a larger unity with its own overall properties--interaction
and modification among these objects is, therefore, an ongoing process (p. 41).

Experimental Testing of Janusian, Homospatial,

and Articulation Processes

As noted elsewhere, Rothenberg has conducted empirical tests with Nobel Laureates, and
gifted poets, writers, visual artists, scientists, and mathemeticians. His results have consistently
indicated that (a) Janusian and Homospatial thinking are operative among highly creative
individuals within each of these disciplines; and (b) created products resulting from Homospatial
thinking proved to be consistently superior in quality compared to those developed as a
consequence of Janusian thinking.

In recent work, Rothenberg (1988a) has asserted that the Janusian, Homospatial, and
Articulation processes are employed by all creative therapists, i.e., therapists operating from
within various schools among both individual and family systems perspectives. This would
suggest that these processes may serve to transcend limitations or contradictions among competing
therapeutic world views. However, while Rothenberg has asserted that Janusian, Homospatial,
and Articulation processes are operative in the creative practice of psychotherapy in its many
forms, he has not actually tested practicing clinicians. His assertions are based upon transcripts

of therapy sessions conducted by himself, colleagues, and supervisees, and the published works

25

of other practicing clinicians and theoreticians. Thus, his assertions are based upon retrospective
reconstructions rather than formalized testing.

Generalizing from these studies, Rothenberg (1988a) asserts that these three processes are
also operative in what he terms "the mutually creative process of psychotherapy" (p. 14). This
writer has developed a graphic illustration of the structure and process aspects of this model (See
Appendix A). Essentially, the Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation processes combine to
promote understanding. The twin products of this "primary creative effect" (p. 175) are the
articulation of insight and the articulation of new personality attributes and structure. These twin
products, in turn, promote the development of twin "final creative outcomes" (p. 184):
independence and integration. Rothenberg has not, however, tested this model. He has also not
fully explored the applicability of his model of psychotherapy specifically to marital and family
therapy. He did examine the use of paradoxical injunctions in marital and family therapy,
Bateson and Haley’s use of therapeutic double-binds, and Erickson’s highly developed skills in
creating metaphors within the context of therapy. He further asserted that Haley and Erickson
employed the Janusian process in their interventions and held the latter’s formulations of
simultaneous antitheses in particularly high regard. Still further, he maintains that the
construction of effective metaphors necessarily involves use of the Homospatial process.
However, in asserting that both individual and family therapists employ the J anusian process in
formulating paradoxical interventions, his evidence is based solely on case studies in the
professional literature and clinical observation rather than formal research.

For these and other reasons to follow, the present study targeted doctoral-level students
in marital and family therapy and family studies. Unfortunately, the structure of this research
did not permit the development and observation of a mutually creative process between therapists
and clients. We must settle for one-time exposure to images designed to trigger Janusian,

Homospatial, and Articulation processes and the performance of tasks common to human ecology

26

theory development and marital and family therapy: (a) identification of operative elements in a
problem; (b) personal reaction to these elements; (c) defining the problem; ((1) creating a
metaphor illustrating the problem; and (e) creating a metaphor illustrating a proposed solution to
the problem.

Other questions remain unanswered. Rothenberg does not address the following: (a)
rating levels of ability in Janusian, Homospatial, or Articulation processes (e.g., low, medium
or high); (b) gender differences in these abilities; (c) whether individual therapists are more
skilled or less skilled in these processes than marital and family therapists; (d) whether marital
and family therapists use these processes more extensively than individual therapists (e.g., he
talks of both Freud and Milton Erickson employing these processes extensivelY); and (e) whether
these processes represent an overall, overarching view of individual or family functioning.

Rothenberg (1983) and Rothenberg and Burkhardt (1984) have used the Kent-Rosanoff
(1910) Word Association Test to test subjects’ ability to identify opposites as an indication of
Janusian thinking ability, i.e., speed in formulating opposite responses was used as an indicator
of simultaneous conceptualization of opposites. Rothenberg has also created specially prepared
slides to be presented to experimental subjects side-by-side and superimposed to trigger J anusian
and Homospatial thinking, respectively. The side-by-side and superimposed images serve as a
metaphor for Janusian and Homospatial thinking, a trigger for Janusian and Homospatial
thinking, and an external expression of these two internal processes. Rothenberg cautions that
Homospatial thinking is not the layering or adding of one element on top of another. It involves
the superimposition of elements within the same space. He also notes that Janusian and
Homospatial processes tend to be fleeting phenomena due to the difficulties inherent in
conceptualizing antithetical phenomena simultaneously (Janusian) or visualizing discrete

phenomena competing for the same space, simultaneously (Homospatial).

27

These issues are of critical importance to the present study. Can J anusian and
Homospatial processes serve as a means of testing one’s ability to perceive an individual
embedded within multiple contexts simultaneously rather than within only two contexts as
Rothenberg has done? Stated differently, within the Homospatial process, is there a limit to the
number of elements one can conceive simultaneously competing within the same space? Is the
Homospatial process useful in integrating only two seemingly oppositional elements at a time or
multiple elements? Family ecological theory, in particular, seeks to integrate numerous elements
(e.g., values, decision-making, goal-setting, time, space, energy, affect, power, meaning). ls
Homospatial thinking useful in integrating all of these, a limited number of them, or only very
specific ones? Thus, how many disparate elements can these processes meaningfully integrate?
Obviously, the greater its range or descriptive power, the more useful it would be in extending

family ecology theory.

The Holon

Asking participants in this study to create metaphors for perceived problems and solutions
may provide some tentative answers to these questions by rating them according to criteria
associated with the holon. Blending the Greek halos, meaning whole, with the suffix on,
suggesting a particle or part (as in neutron or proton), the holon is a conception developed by
Koestler (1978) and enriched by others (Capra, 1982; Young, 1989) in which all phenomena are
seen to operate simultaneously as both part of a larger whole and a whole unto itself. Further,
the whole is contained within each component part. A useful example of this aspect of the holon
may be that of the individual within a family. The individual is both a part of the family and a
whole being. Similarly, the family is both a part of a larger whole and a whole in relation to its

individual members. Further, the family may, in some important ways, be found in each

28

individual. This writer would also note that each part is, itself, comprised of multiple parts. For
example, the individual as part of a whole family possesses parts such as arms, legs, fingers and
toes as well as whole systems such as circulatory and respiratory systems that function
simultaneously in concert as both parts and wholes.

Each holon also displays both a self-assertive and an integrative tendency. It is through
the dynamic interplay between the two complementary tendencies that a system maintains health,
flexibility, and openness to change. Thus, the content of metaphors produced by participants in
this study were rated according to emphasis upon: (a) part(s) as whole(s); (b) whole(s) as part(s);
(c) part(s) within whole(s); (d) whole(s) within part(s); (e) interactions and transactions between
or among parts; (0 interactions and transactions between or among part(s) and whole(s); and (g)
all of these, simultaneously (See Appendix B for a rating sheet designed for use in measuring the
presence of these emphases in participants’ metaphors).

Boulding (1978) has addressed the fundamental embeddedness aspect of this part/whole
issue in describing what he refers to as "the myth of the environment":

We must look at the world, and indeed at the universe, as a total system of

interacting parts. There is no such thing as an "environment," if by this we

mean a surrounding system that is independent of what goes on inside it.

Particularly, there is no sense at this stage of evolution on earth in talking about

"the environment" as if it were nature without the human race. It makes sense

to divide the totality of the universe into parts that have some degree of

independent dynamic pattern, but none of these parts are really independent of

others; all interact. Everything is the environment of something else. When we

talk about the environmental problem, we are talking about the total state of the

world and evaluating it from the point of human values. We are not talking

about the nonhuman part of the system and evaluating it by its own values,

because it does not have any (p. 31).

Young (1989) examines the functional aspects of part and whole dynamics within human
ecological theory building:

Preoccupation with the relationship of parts and wholes is an ancient dialectic.

Part of the reason for its endurance is because people are intrigued by how things

fit. Another reason is that they like to know how things work and a systemic,
dynamic whole (e.g., any ecological system) can function only if the parts are

29

smoothly meshed and properly connected. As ecologists become more
sophisticated, the parts-whole nexus may emerge as an even stronger focus. This
is reflected in Shoemaker’s (1977) comment that the objective in building
ecosystem models is to apprehend and predict the behavior of such systems--as
wholesuby depicting interactions between parts of the system in quantitative
terms (p. 33).

Young goes on to assert that the presence and operation of connections are basic assumptions in
ecology and the empirical tasks confronting ecologists are, therefore, threefold: (a) uncover the
multiplicity of ways in which part-whole connections are established and maintained; (b) examine
the shape and form of these connections; and (c) analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the
connecting linkages.

Fishman (1983) gets at important aspects of the holon in arguing that the family therapist
operates both inside and outside the family system, simultaneously. Drawing an analogy from
painting, he states the therapist establishes and maintains this ambiguous position through a
"cubist solution" (p. 80):

In cubism the forms are broken down into a series of sharply angled or faceted

planes. Traditionally, the painter views his subject from one static position

outside the picture frame. . . . The cubists on the other hand, disintegrate the

form into a series of simultaneously viewed but different aspects of the same

subject. . . . To achieve greater understanding or analysis of the figure, the

cubist steps into the picture frame and walks about the subject, observing it from

various angles (Myers, 1967). No longer does the therapist have to rely on a

flat, two dimensional representation such as in a Giotto. He or she does not need

to lose, in a blaze of motion, like Jackson Pollock, all form. Instead, like a

Braque or Picasso, the therapist can observe the subject from different angles,

and experience simultaneously the contradictory aspects of the family as both a

verb and a noun (p. 80-81).

Keeney (1983b) blends key human ecological, ecosystemic, and marital and family
therapy concepts and processes in formulating an approach to treatment he has variously referred
to as "ecosystemic family therapy" (Falzer, 1986, p. 353) and "ecological assessment" (Keeney,
1983b. p. 157). A link with the holon is abundantly clear:

No system level is ever completely independent or autonomous from other

system levels in the every-day flow of action. A more correct description of the
ecology of behavior would be to talk of "nested systems," demonstrating that

30

each level of system is embodied by other levels. Thus, individual behavior is
simultaneously social behavior from another point of view and vice versa. In
other words, an individual is always part of a social context and a social context
always implies the inclusion of different individual systems. The
interconnectedness of levels of system suggests that information obtained from
any level of system can be used to make inferences about the relation of that
system to other levels of system (p. 161).

In addition to human ecologists and marital and family therapists, numerous theorists
operating within a greatly varied range of disciplines have addressed issues related to part and
whole phenomena and dynamics. These theorists include, among countless others, Amheim
(1966); Bachelard (1964); Basseches (1984); Bertalanffy (1968); de Chardin (1966); Dewey
(1934); Kofflta (1935); Laotzu (Bynner, 1962); Lowen (1982); Merleau-Ponty (1984), Milbrath
(1989); Montague (Fox, 1980); Morgan (1968); Rank (Lodge, 1977; Rogan, 1977); Rychlak
(1976); Steiner (1986); Watts (1961); and Wilber (1990).

Basseches (1984) takes a decidedly dialectical perspective on the part-whole issue:

The process of existence a a whole (is) viewed as characterized by continual

differentiation and integration. Thus, although coherent wholes which organize

parts are themselves but parts of larger wholes, the dialectical perspective

emphasizes the ontological priority of wholeness. In contrast to outlooks which

view the nature of wholes as entirely determined by the nature of their parts,

dialectical outlooks attribute to wholes a role in making parts what they are.

From the dialectical perspective, as the catch-phrase, goes, "the whole is greater

than the sum of its parts" (p. 21).

Fox (1980), holder of advanced degrees in science, philosophy, and veterinary medicine, speaks
to these issues quite pointedly:

From what we know of the structure and composition of cells, organs, bodies,

societies, and ecosystems, everything is interrelated. Interdependence and

interpenetration link the microcosms of cells and of individual beings with the
macrocosm of the biosphere of earth. This in turn is a microcosm of the solar

system which is, in itself, a small component of the universe. In this oneness of

environment and organism, individuality is an illusion. That all of earth is

related and interdependent is not a mystical or religious belief but a concrete,

scientific reality (pp. 219-220).

Schiff (1990), analyzing the splendor of the Renaissance painter Titian’s brushwork,

approaches aspects of the holon from yet another perspective:

31

The broad strokes of the brush had replaced contiguous planes of color. Even
the colors, as the eminent art historian Johannes Wilde pointed out, had been
"split up and dismembered, and have been distributed in small particles all over

the picture space. . . . Not the smallest point in it has been left neutral; and
potentially, every single brush stroke contains all the colors of the picture" (p.
80).

While not inclined to include the solar system and other far-reaching domains within the
natural environment, Rothenberg (1988a) does address certain aspects of part and whole dynamics
as these apply to the independence and integration of final created products. These products may
include the separations and connections within and between individuals and families, scientific
creations, clients and therapists, and works of art. Here, Rothenberg highlights the relationships
among parts and wholes within the context of works of art:

Artworks accorded high degrees of value or approval are usually integrated. . .

. with coordination and interaction among their parts and a distinct identity to the

whole. Neither lacking in discreteness nor submerged within the whole, these

parts interact and contribute to overall function and organization. This

integration is often likened to the living biological organism, and valued artworks

are said to have organic unity. In the biological organism, discrete identifiable

body parts, on a molar and molecular level, interact and contribute to the

function of the body as a whole. In this way, an organism is a fully self-

sufficient and independent entity (p. 184).

It is the structure and pattern of these part and whole relationships in the form of the
concept of the holon and the medium of metaphor that will permit us to address some of the
fundamental questions guiding this research. While systems theorists and practitioners typically
emphasize the importance of thinking, seeing, and perceiving systemically, no tests have yet been
formulated to determine the level of one’s skill or ability to perform this cognitive operation.
How can one identify a "systems thinker"? What are the steps involved in the process? Indeed,
Haley (1977) has asserted that concentrated work with a minimum of 200 families is required
before the family therapist undergoes a fundamental shift in perception of individual and family

dynamics. Again, this study may provide some initial, tentative steps along the path toward

formulating meaningful responses to these questions.

32

It is particularly intriguing to note at this juncture that Koestler (1978) authored a book
entitled Janusna fitting linkage with the present study’s attempt to integrate his concept of the

holon with Rothenberg’s concept of Janusian and Homospatial processes.

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

The present study is ecological in nature, in that it acknowledges and incorporates an
understanding of the interactive relationship between an organism and its environment. The
environment may include the natural physical-biological environment, the human-built
environment, and the social-cultural environment (Bubolz & Sontag, in press). The organism
examined may be an individual or group occupying space identified as a "human environed unit"
(p. 29, Bubolz, Eicher, & Sontag, 1979). This project specifically explored the presence and
effects of Janusian and Homospatial process on the thinking patterns and processes (social-cultural
environment) and subsequent creative products and outcomes (human-built environment) among

doctoral candidates in family studies and marital and family therapy.

Research Design

This study was an exploratory, controlled, experimental investigation of the presence and
effects of J anusian, Homospatial, and Articulation process thinking among doctoral-level students
engaged in theory development and practical application or intervention strategies. The research
design was a two—group structure and the unit of analysis doctoral candidates in family studies

and marital and family therapy.

33

34
mumps

The primary goal of this study was to examine the presence of J anusian, Homospatial,
and Articulation process thinking ability and its possible effect on the systemic and ecosystemic
thinking and related products and outcomes among doctoral candidates in family studies and

marital and family therapy.

mestigns

The materials and protocols employed in this study were designed to address the many
questions appearing within the Introduction. For purposes of the dissertation, however, the
following questions will be addressed:

1. Will development and utilization of original materials and protocols prove useful in
triggering the Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation processes through creation of metaphors
among doctoral candidates in family studies and marital and family therapy?

2. Will development and utilization of original materials and protocols prove useful in
the analysis of created metaphors?

3. How many disparate elements can students perceive and integrate through use of these
processes?

4. Will the content of systemic and ecosystemic thinking in the form of original
metaphors prove superior in depth, breadth, and richness among those exposed to images
designed to trigger the Homospatial process compared to those exposed to images designed to

trigger the Janusian process?

35

Variables

The dependent variables are the depth, breadth, and richness of content in created
metaphors among doctoral candidates in family studies and marital and family therapy. Each of
these dependent variables was quantified using a series of measurement items. Together, these
items were combined into summary scales for each of the outcome measures.

The control variables included the following: age, gender, culture, ethnicity, marital
status, number of children, number of siblings, birth order, religious affiliation, status in doctoral
program, areas of professional expertise, and self-perception of level of creativity.

The independent variable is the experimental group to which the participants are assigned:
Janusian and Homospatial.

JANUSIAN PROCESS: Actively conceiving two or more opposites or

antitheses simultaneously.

HOMOSPATIAL PROCESS: Actively conceiving two or more discrete entities

occupying the same space and resulting in the articulation of new identities.

ARTICULATION PROCESS: Includes Janusian and Homospatial processes

and involves actively joining one element with another within many different
dimensions (e.g., conceptual, perceptual, volitional, affective, and physical) in
the creation of a product that is simultaneously separate or distinct and connected
to other elements.

A conceptual model guiding the conduct of this research may be found in Figure 1.

36
Imtrumentation

Testing creativity among professionals in some fields is a relatively straightforward task.
For example, in response to experimental conditions, Rothenberg (1988b) and Rothenberg and
Sobel (1980a, 1981a) asked writers and poets to create metaphors and visual artists (Rothenberg,
1986, 1988b) to create drawings-common, everyday tasks to members of each profession.
However, testing creativity among members of the therapeutic community presents some unique
challenges. One may begin by listing the activities in which therapists engage. These activities
may be assigned to four general categories: (a) visual (observation); (b) aural (listening); (c)
verbal (speaking); and ((1) written. In the interests of time and expense, this study emphasized
visual and written activities--written responses to exposure to 35 millimeter slides.

Rothenberg has used specially prepared slides to trigger Janusian and Homospatial
processes within research subjects. Review of a listing of the content of these images, however,
indicated that they may be of limited utility for experimental groups comprised of marital and
family therapists and human and family ecologists. It would seem that these two populations
would respond most readily to images of themes related to children, families, and various
environmental contexts. Therefore, a collection of 20 specially prepared slides was created for
use in this study. The slides included both color and black and white as well as various
combinations among media-paintings, photographs, sculpture, and drawing. These images also
included great range and variety in texture, lighting, intensity, age of subjects (infancy to old
age), relationship types (intrapsychic, interpersonal, intrafamilial, transgenerational), composition,
format (horizontal and vertical), artistic style (abstract and representational), size (long-distance,
close-up, and microscopic enlargement), and life forms (human, animal, and plant life).

Consistent with Rothenberg’s protocol, the slides were presented to subjects in either side-

by-side (A=left and B=right) or superimposed configurations to stimulate Janusian and

.s£.m.§.ozs§o _mU02 _m=“—Q¢UCOO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. mama... ‘ masses 2...... _
. 255.6 $22 38. 222.... 8.8.5
... 20.8455. met $.35 5-2.. —
$2..
\‘ ...... 0203
20.85.32. _
gaze .0 .23 .3283:
.9 SE§£...8 _
8...on .
28%....an \
1.. 28.38.ng Es. afiefifimw -
on . \s an. AEEUDCPM z: 5‘ c2332 339-3...
14A” _IA 3023 Il— .§...Em 8.38. mmozefims. . .85 5.5 «300....
a: \s... at mmwzomnommaw h 3 53—57% mo 8:52‘
30:: 35.3 .o .352
. . .. 5E8 20:58
. Lana... :Ewo 2.2.23 535... 85.52
. E: Swan.“
{so

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”Egan SEE. —.

 

 

 

 

r1
2”

8mg... .35.

m< 20:03? 5!: a .35.;

 

.825
.2
29.2..
4 I... .55.
/ Ednamgum m<
/ , t... 30:? -

>Eo¢a6mm .230 —

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

Homospatial thinking, respectively. Figure 2 provides a brief description of the content of the
images employed in this study. Color xerox copies of prints of two of these images appear in
Appendix C (Slide Set 1, Janusian Condition); Appendix D (Slide 1, Homospatial Condition);
Appendix E (Slide Set 5, Janusian Condition); and Appendix F (Slide 5, Homospatial Condition).

It should be noted that the slides prepared for use in this study were varied in terms of
level of clarity and ambiguity in the Homospatial or superimposed configuration. For example,
the boundaries among figures and shapes in Slide 1 (See Appendix D) are relatively clear-cut
compared to the more diffuse, ambiguous relationships within Slide 5 (See Appendix F). It
should also be noted that while Rothenberg presented his subjects no more than two slides side-
by-side (J anusian) and superimposed (Homospatial), this study included as many as four slides
side-by-side (J anusian) and superimposed (Homospatial)--Slide Set/Slide 6. This device was used
to test the depth of participants’ perceptions--their ability to see and transform multiple, complex
images into something new. Hopefully, this will serve to broaden and enrich the utility of

Rothenberg’s constructs.

Data Collection

Participants were drawn from a sampling frame consisting of doctoral candidates within
the two areas of specialization in the Department of Family and Child Ecology in the College of
Human Ecology at Michigan State University. Specifically, the student participants were drawn
from a sampling frame consisting of 83 members of the entire 97 member Department of Family
and Child Ecology doctoral student population-58 doctoral candidates enrolled in the Family
Studies specialization and 25 doctoral candidates enrolled in the Marital and Family Therapy

specialization. The other 14 students included those who were: (a) out of state; (b) out of the

39

country; (c) not yet officially removed from the enrollment list due to withdrawal from the

university; ((1) very recent graduates; and (e) graduating during the term the data were collected.

 

JANUSIAN GROUP HOMOSPATTAL GROUP
Set #1 A stem flanked by two Same superimposed

leaves (photograph) and a
couple seated on outdoor
benches (photograph)

Set #2 Matisse’s "Music" (paint- Same superimposed
ing) and "Dance" (painting)

Set #3 Older adult woman (photo- Same superimposed
graph) and an infant on
mother’s knee (photograph)

Set #4 Picasso’s "The Tragedy" Same superimposed
(painting) and Rodin’s
"The Kiss" (sculpture)

Set #5 A woman helping another Same superimposed
shed her "skin" or persona
(drawing) and a couple
seated on a rock (painting)

Set #6 Dutch landscape (paint- Same superimposed
ing), an adult tossing a
child in the air (photo-
graph), Henry Moore’s
Family Group (sculpture)
and an enlargement of a
microscopic photograph of
a butterfly wing

Figure 2: Content of Images Employed in Study

40

A master listing of the doctoral candidates was secured from the departmental chairperson.
An introductory letter (See Appendix G) briefly described the research and invited the reader to
fill out and return a response form (See Appendix H) indicating willingness to participate and
identify dates and hours of availability for participation. The letter was sent to all 83 Family and
Child Ecology doctoral candidates. A stamped, self-addressed envelope was included for the
convenience of prospective participants and to enhance the rate of return. A total of 37 students
completed the required protocols. The 19 Family Studies and 18 Marital and Family Therapy
volunteers were randomly assigned to one of the two groups, J anusian and Homospatial,

respectively. Figure 3 provides a breakdown of the two groups and program specializations.

JANUSIAN HOMOSPATIAL
(n = 17) (n = 20)
F_S M £5. MEI
9 8 10 10

Figure 3: Breakdown of Experimental Groups and Program Specializations

It should be noted that Ph.D.-level trainees in both Family Studies and Marital and
Family Therapy were selected since one of the major objectives of this study was to identify the
characteristics and processes operating within future scholars and practitioners functioning at the
highest levels of their profession.

The methodology employed was a two-group experimental design. The two groups were
exposed to two different treatments and the same outcome measures. Statistical techniques were
employed to evaluate differences between the two groups due to exposure to the different

treatments .

41

The intent of the data collection was to measure differences in the creative thinking of
the participants due to exposure of the treatment groups to two different types of visual stimuli.
The stimuli were intended to evoke Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation process thinking--
modes of thinking believed to be operative among doctoral—level students in Marital and Family
Therapy and Family Studies. Quantitative outcome measures were employed to evaluate
perceived differences between the two groups, especially in production, content, and type of
outputs.

Participants completed a series of written tasks within a controlled setting. Great care
was taken in identifying an environment conducive to the purposes of the study. The room
selected was a large, carpeted, high-ceilinged lecture hall with a seating capacity of 154. It is
located in a building familiar to all participants-one that houses laboratories, classrooms, and
administrative offices for the College of Human Ecology. Since the data were collected in May -
June 1991, the air conditioning available in this room was an important consideration in an area
where 90 degree weather is not uncommon during late spring and early summer. It contains a
large projector screen (nine feet wide by eight feet high), permitting projection of multiple
images, simultaneously. It contains a tall, vertical shuttered window (2.5 feet wide by 7.5 feet
high) on the upper right side wall, permitting careful control of natural light. It contains two
banks of dimmer-switch equipped overhead lights permitting careful control of artificial lighting
effects. Finally, it is a classroom rather than an experimental laboratory settinguan environment
in which most participants would feel relatively comfortable.

The tasks completed by each participant are outlined in an Instruction Booklet. One
version of the Booklet was designed for distribution to Treatment Group A (J anusian) and the
other for use by Treatment Group B (Homospatial). Treatment Group A was exposed to a series
of six 35 millimeter slide sets projected onto a screen. Five of these slide sets consisted of two

images projected side-by-side on the screen and one slide set consisted of four images projected

42

in a two-by-two configuration on the screen. Treatment Group B was exposed to the same
images with one fundamental and extremely important difference-rather than presented side-by-
side, the slide sets were superimposed upon each other.

In addition to signing a consent form (See Appendix 1), members of both groups
completed the following five tasks in response to each slide and slide set: (a) identify content of
image(s); (b) identify any personal reactions to the image(s); (c) identify one or more problems
the image(s) may suggest; (d) create one or more metaphors that reflect one’s perception of the
identified problem; and (e) create one or more metaphors that reflect one’s perception of an
effective solution for the identified problem. Each slide and slide set remained on screen for 15
minutes.

Asking Homospatial participants to identify what they see in the images is supported by
a particularly important rationale. Integration and differentiation are equally important, i.e., it
is essential that one be able to identify parts as well as the wholes the parts comprise. This
relates to Rothenberg’s conception of Articulation where elements are repeatedly separated and
connected to form new configurations. Thus, if a slide contains two or more images
superimposed or embedded within each other, it is important to know if participants can see the
separate images operating alone and in concert in the formation of something entirely new.

Reduced to it’s essentials, Rothenberg’s experimental studies of Janusian and Homospatial
process with visual artists and poets, respectively, assumed the form presented in Figure 4.
While metaphors also figure prominently in the present study, it should be noted that evaluating
metaphors is something less than an exact science. One may speak of a metaphor’s content,
quality, or effectiveness, among other things. Within a therapeutic context, an important criterion
for the effectiveness of a metaphor may be the degree or level of therapeutic movement or change
it may precipitate. This is, in fact, a key element in Rothenberg’s (1988a) notion of a mutually

creative process of psychotherapy-therapist and client working together to create, embellish, and

43

implement effective metaphors. The design of the present study did not, however, permit the
tracking of this interactive process between therapist and client over time.

As noted above, in his experimental studies, Rothenberg evaluated the quality of the
metaphors created by his subjects. This was accomplished through blind review by a panel of
literary experts. What criteria can one use, however, to evaluate metaphors created by family
therapists and other family specialists? The application of literary standards may be inappropriate
to assess quality and the absence of clients renders evaluation of effectiveness difficult, at best.
We are left, therefore, with content as a measure. Support for content as a measure may be
found in Brooke-Rose’s (1958) recounting of a long history of analyzing metaphors by idea-
content dating back to Aristotle. She cites four main types: (a) the species/genus classification;
(b) the animate/inanimate classification; (c) the classification by domain of thought; and (d) the

analysis by dominant trait.

Janusian/Homospatial
Trigger ----- > T k ----- > Outcome
Slide Image Drawing Higher Quality
(Homospatial
Condition)
Slide Image Metaphor Higher Quality
(Homospatial
Condition)

Figure 4: Form of Rothenberg’s Experimental Studies with
Visual Artists and Poets
Additional support for content as a measure of analysis may be found in Hayakawa’s
(1966) assessment of Embler’s (1966) position on the power of metaphor:
Metaphors are the very stuff with which human beings make sense of the

universe . . . . metaphors are the principles of organization by means of which
we sort our perceptions, make evaluations, and guide our purposes (p. i).

44

Hayakawa adds that implicit within metaphors are the philosophies of life of individuals,
generations, and entire civilizations. Content, therefore, should serve the purposes of this study
well.

A primary research question driving this project was assessing the depth and breadth of
perception common among marital and family therapists and other family specialists, i.e., how
much can they meaningfully see. It is believed that, compared to participants exposed to slides
presented side-by-side (Janusian), participants exposed to the same slides superimposed
(Homospatial) will be able to create: (a) a greater number of metaphors; and (b) metaphors that
are richer in content, i.e., metaphors that contain a greater number of elements operating in

concert. Figure 5 provides an illustration of this reworking of Rothenberg’s protocol.

Janusian/Homospatial
Trigger ---- > T k ----- > tcome
Slide Image Metaphor Higher Quantity
& Content
(Homospatial
Condition)

Figure 5: Form of Present Study’s Experimental Analysis with Doctoral
Candidates in Family Studies and Marital and Family Therapy

In addition to total number created, the metaphors created by participants in this study,
then, were examined for emphasis on the following: (a) reversibility (including reciprocity or
richness); (b) structural transformation (including embeddedness or depth); and (c) systemic
patterns/linkages (including surface dynamics or breadth). Specifically, the metaphors created
by participants in this study were rated according to emphasis on one or more of the previously

mentioned Holonic perception emphases: (a) part(s) as whole(s); (b) whole(s) as part(s); (c)

45
part(s) within whole(s); (d) whole(s) within part(s); (e) interactions between or among parts; and
(t) interactions between or among part(s) and whole(s).

See the Conceptual Model in Figure 1 for a pictorial illustration of the domains
incorporated within the holonic emphases. Appendix B, a Holonic Perception Rating Sheet, was
designed for use in coding and tallying the presence of these emphases in participants’ metaphors.
It was expected that the two populations selected for inclusion in this study would perceive
systemic, interactional patterns and linkages. However, it is the essential embeddedness--the
ability to see the operation of parts within wholes and wholes within parts--that is particularly
difficult to both conceptualize and articulate. Although these populations, more than most others,
should be equipped to perceive embeddedness, this perceptual ability was expected to appear less
frequently in participants’ metaphors.

It should be noted that each of the images used in the present study, both separate and
superimposed, can be seen as a visual metaphor, itself. Therefore, when participants were asked
to create metaphors based upon their perceptions of these images, they were, in effect, asked to
create metaphors for metaphors-something of a meta-metaphor.

In addition to items addressing the slide images, both forms of the Instruction Booklet
included a Questionnaire targeting basic demographic data and self-perception of level of
creativity (i.e., low, moderate and high). Comparison of self-perception along this continuum

with actual performance on specific tasks may yield meaningful insights.

Limitations and Assumptions

Rothenberg (1988a) has asserted that Janusian process generally does not occur during the

initial contact between therapist and client. It is, rather, a process that grows out of time spent

with the client and becoming familiar with his or her issues. Nevertheless, he also maintains that

46

the Janusian process can occur at the very beginning of treatment and becomes more fully
articulated over time. As noted previously, the structure of this study did not permit tracking of
content or process-related issues between therapist and client. To the extent that the former
assertion should prove to be true, an impoverishment in the content of the products produced by

the Janusian process group was expected.

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The present study is quite complex and driven by a concerted effort to develop materials,
mechanisms, and protocols useful in the identification and analysis of three interrelated creative
processes. Although the strategies employed in this research yielded quantitative outcomes, the
primary interest of the investigator remained the discovery of appropriate means of analyzing
qualitative responses.

The protocol employed in this research consisted of two portions: (a) a questionnaire
containing sociodemographic items and items addressing self-perception of creativity; and (b)

essay responses to slide images.

Questionnaire Content

A breakdown on the number of items within the questionnaire appears in Table 1.

Table 1 - Questionnaire Content

—

 

 

 

 

Items Number Participants Total

Sociodemographic 1 1 407
37

Self Perception 13 481

of Creativity

Total 24 37 888

47

48

Sociodemgggaphic Data
Thirty seven individuals participated in this study-19 Family Studies doctoral students

and 18 enrolled in the Marital and Family Therapy specialization. Nearly 85 % of the participants
had completed 60-100% of their coursework. See Table 2 for a breakdown on program status
by group and program. Nearly half of the Homospatial group were working on their dissertation
at the time of the data collection compared to only 6% of the members of the Janusian group.
This advanced status may have served them well in completing the protocols employed in this
study.

Table 2 - Program Status by Group and Program
—

 

 

 

 

 

Group Program
Program Status Janmian Homospatial FS MFI‘
% % % %
(n) (n) (n) (n)
0-5096 Coursework 17.6 15.0 10.5 22.2
Completed (3) (3) (2) (4)
60-10096 Coursework 70.6 25.0 . 42.1 50.0
Completed (12) (5) (8) (9)
Comps Completed 5.9 20.0 10.5 16.7
(1) (4) (2) (3)
Doing Dissertation 5.9 40.0 36.8 11.1
(1) (3) (7) (2)
Total N 17 20 19 18
—

The participants brought a very broad range of professional expertise to their doctoral
programs and to this study. Management, speech and language pathology, program evaluation,
and pastoral work illustrate something of this diversity. However, education, nursing, and

therapy of various kinds were the areas most frequently cited (64.8% of the participants).

49

The ages of the participants ranged from 28 to 53 with a mean age of 41.9. The sample
was predominately female, with females comprising 78.4% of the participants. See Table 3 for
a breakdown on gender by group and program. Nearly three—fourths were married. Nearly nine
out of ten participants had children with a modal category of two. Only 20% of the participants
with children were single parents. None of the participants came from single-child families and
nearly 30% are members of a sibship of three children.

Table 3 - Gender by Group and Program
—

 

 

 

 

 

Group Program
Gender Janusian Homospatial FS MFI‘
% % % %
(n) (n) (n) (n)
Female 70.6 85.0 84.2 72.2
(12) (17) (16) (13)
Male 29.4 15.0 15.8 27.7
(5) (3) (3) (5)
Total N 17 20 19 18
—

Almost 22% of the sample were Catholic, 45.9% were Protestant, and 32.4% comprised
other religions and those reporting no religion. Examining racial/ethnic background, the sample

was predominately white with nearly nine out of ten participants white.

Self-Perception of Creativity Data

- When asked whether they considered themselves to be creative, 81.1% of the participants
indicated they consider themselves to be creative at least some of the time (43.2% indicated So-
metimes, 37.8% indicated Yes, and 18.9% indicated No). See Table 4 for a breakdown on self-

perception of creativity by group and program.

50

Table 4 — Self-Perception of Creativity by Group and Program

 

 

 

 

 

—
Group Program
Creative Janusian Homospatial FS MFI‘
% % % %
(n) (n) (n) 0!)
Yes 47.0 30.0 31.5 44.4
(8) (6) (6) (8)
No 17.6 20.0 31.5 5.5
(3) (4) (6) (1)
Sometimes 35.3 50.0 36.8 50.0
(6) (10) (7) (9)
Total N 17 20 19 18

Only 1 person in the Marital and Family Therapy program indicated he or she was not creative
with the remaining 17 participants considering themselves to be creative at least some of the time.
Overall, more than 2/3 of the participants in each group and program considered themselves to
be creative at least some of the time.

Table 5 provides a breakdown on the areas in which participants considered themselves
to be creatively expressive and highly skilled and the areas they find useful in theoretical and
intervention activities. Nearly half of all participants considered themselves to be creatively
expressive in music, crafts, therapy, and other areas. Only 27% indicated they were creatively
expressive in visual art. Expressivity does not translate into self-reported skill in any of these
areas, however. Music and therapy were the areas cited most frequently at 21.6% each. Visual
art was cited by only 8.1%. See Table 6 for a breakdown of areas of creative expression by
group and program. Only 4 participants in the Homospatial group considered themselves to be

creative in the visual arts. Science was the area in which participants across all groups and

51

programs considered themselves to be least creative. Among the Marital and Family Therapy

participants, therapy was the area in which most considered themselves to be creative.

Table 5 - Self-Perceptions of Expressivity, Skill, and Utilization in Theory and Practice
—

 

Creatively Highly Useful in Useful in
Expressive Skilled Theory Practice
n=37 n=37 n=37 n=37
Areas Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
% % % % % % % %
(n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)

 

Crafts 43.2 56.8 10.8 89.2 16.2 83.8 16.2 83.8
(16) (21) (4) (33) (6) (31) (6) (31)

Literary 35.1 64.9 2.7 97.3 24.3 75.7 18.9 81.1

Arts (13) (24) (1) (36) (9) (28) (7) (30)
Music 43.2 56.8 21.6 78.4 18.9 81.1 27.0 73.0

(16) (21) (8) (29) (7) (30) (10) (27)
Science 5.4 94.6 2.7 97.3 10.8 89.2 13.5 86.5

(2) (35) (1) (36) (4) (33) (5) (32)

Theatre 27.0 73.0 13.5 86.5 21.6 78.4 16.2 83.8
Arts (10) (27) (5) (32) (8) (29) (6) (31)

Therapy 43.2 56.8 21.6 78.4 40.5 59.5 37.8 62.2
(16) (21) (8) (29) (15) (22) (14) (23)

Visual 27.0 73.0 8.1 91.9 27.0 73.0 24.3 75.7
Arts (10) (27) (3) (34) (10) (27) (9) (28)

Other 43.2 56.8 13.5 86.5 16.2 83.8 27.0 73.0
Areas (16) (21) (5) (32) (6) (31) (10) (27)

 

 

—

Table 7 provides a breakdown on areas of high skill by group and program. Areas in
which participants considered themselves most highly skilled were limited to music and therapy

within both groups and programs. However, the numbers within each area did not exceed 30%.

52

Table 6 - Areas of Creative Expression by Group and Program
—

 

 

Group Program
Areas Janusian Homospatial FS MFI‘
(n= 17) (n=20) (n= 19) (n= 18)
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
% % % % % % % %
(n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)
Crafts 35.2 64.7 50.0 50.0 36.8 63.2 50.0 50.0
(6) (11) (10) (10) (7) (12) (9) (9)
Literary 47 .0 52.9 25 .0 75.0 21.1 79.0 50.0 50.0
Arts (3) (9) (5) (15) (4) (15) (9) (9)
Music 52.9 47 .0 35.0 65.0 42.1 57 .9 44.4 55.6
(9) (8) (7) (13) (8) (11) (8) (10)
Science 11.8 88.4 -- 100 5.3 94.7 5.6 94.4
(2) (15) (0) (20) (1) (18) (1) (17)
Theatre 35 .2 64.7 20.0 80.0 21 . 1 79.0 33.3 66.7
Arts (6) (1 1) (4) (16) (4) (15) (6) ( 12)
Therapy 41.2 58.8 45.0 55.0 21.1 79.0 66.7 33.3
(7) (10) (9) (11) (4) (15) (12) (6)
Visual 35.2 64.7 20.0 80.0 21.1 79.0 33.3 66.7
Arts (6) (1 1) (4) (16) (4) (15) (6) (12)
Other 35.3 64.7 50.0 50.0 47.4 52.6 38.9 61.1
Areas (6) (11) (10) (10) (9) (10) (7) (11)

 

 

—._.l

When asked to identify which skills were useful in their theoretical work, 40.5% of all
participants (Table 5) indicated therapy skills and 27% indicated visual art skills.

Table 8 provides a breakdown of skills useful in theoretical work by group and program.
Participants in the Marital and Family Therapy program considered their therapy skills to be most
useful in their theoretical work (61%). The skills cited most frequently by all participants as
useful in practice were therapy (37 .8%), music, and other skills each at 27% (Table 5). Table

9 presents a breakdown on skills useful in intervention work by group and program. Again,

53

music and therapy are the areas in which participants’ skills tend to be useful in intervention
work.

When asked if they saw things differently from others as a child, 45 .9% indicated Yes,
24.3% indicated No, and 29.7% were unsure. Elaborations on this item were quite varied but
tended to center around certain key themes. Several examples may be illustrative:

Able to grasp images of concepts very readily and hold the images during further
learning.

Swallowed experiences and perceptions whole with multiple layers of meaning
presenting themselves.

Taught that life was black and white, right and wrong, but actually saw multiple
shades of grey.

Always able to detect logical sequences of events, identify patterns, and construct
frameworks.

Able to see a broader picture of problems and formulate highly accurate analyses.

Able to see individuals affecting the whole and functioning as both carriers and
victims of the whole.

Played from a different sheet of music and learned at an early age how to

surv1ve.

Able to identify missing elements, question their absence, and create solutions.

See Table 10 for a breakdown on tendency to perceive differently as a child by group and
program. More than half (52.6%) of the Family Studies participants indicated they perceived
things differently as children.

When asked if they enjoy working with the operation of parts within wholes and wholes
within parts, 70.3% of all participants indicated Yes, 24.3% indicated No, and 5.4% left the item
blank. Elaborations on this item were even more varied but these, too, centered around certain
key themes:

Viewing the whole family system and interacting of individual parts to assist
families in problem solving.

54

Table 7 - Areas of High Skill by Group and Program

_

 

 

Group Program
Areas Janusian Homospatial FS MFI‘

(n = 17) (n=20) (n= 19) (n = 18)
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

% % % % % % % %
(n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)
Crafts 5.8 94.1 15.0 85.0 15.7 84.2 5.6 94.4
(1) (16) (3) (17) (3) (16) (1) (17)
Literary 5.8 94.1 --- 100 --- 100 5.6 94.4
Arts (1) (16) (0) (20) (0) (19) ( 1) (17)

Music 29.4 70.5 15.0 85.0 21.1 78.9 22.2 77.7
(5) (12) (3) (17) (4) (15) (4) (14)

Science --- 100 5.0 95.0 5.3 94.7 --- 100

(0) (17) (1) (19) (1) (13) (0) (13)
Theatre Missing Data 10.5 89.4 16.6 83.3
Arts (2) (17) (3) (15)

Therapy 11.8 88.2 30.0 70.0 15.7 84.2 27.7 72.2
(2) (15) (6) (14) (3) (l6) (5) (13)

Visual 5.8 94.1 10.0 90.0 5.3 94.7 11.1 88.8
Arts (1) (16) (2) (l8) (1) (18) (2) (16)
Other 5.8 94.1 20.0 80.0 15.7 84.2 11.1 88.8
Areas (1) (16) (4) (16) (3) (16) (2) (16)

 

 

Love crossword, picture, and jigsaw puzzles and mystery novels.

Make up of voice output computer overlays, the concept of "pages" within the
computer, and body parts used for speech.

Creating visual images of the whole by manipulating the parts in directing theatre
productions.

Installing, disassembling, and assembling machines to promote proper
functioning.

55

Table 8 - Skills Useful in Theoretical Work by Group and Program

 

 

Group Program
Areas Janusian Homospatial FS MFI‘
(n= 17) (n=20) (n= 19) (n= 18)
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
% % % % % % % %
(n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)
Crafts 5 .8 94.1 25.0 75.0 10.5 89.4 22.2 77 .7
(1) (16) (5) (15) (2) (17) (4) (14)
Literary 35.3 64.7 15.0 85.0 21.0 78.9 27.7 72.2
Arts (6) (11) (3) (17) (4) (15) (5) (13)
Music 23.5 76.4 15.0 85.0 10.5 89.4 27.7 72.2
(4) (13) (3) (17) (2) (17) (5) (13)
Science 17.6 82.3 5.0 95.0 10.5 89.4 11.1 88.8
(3) (14) (1) (l9) (2) (17) (2) (16)
Theatre 29.4 70.5 15.0 85.0 10.5 89.4 33.3 66.7
Arts (5) ( 12) (3) (17) (2) (17) (6) (12)
Therapy 29.4 70.5 50.0 50.0 21.0 78.9 61.1 38.8
(5) (12) (10) (10) (4) (15) (11) (7)
Visual 41.1 58.8 15.0 85.0 21.0 78.9 33.3 66.7
Arts (7) (10) (3) (17) (4) (15) (6) (12)
Other 11.7 88.2 20.0 80.0 15.7 84.2 16.6 83.3
Areas (2) ( 15) (4) (16) (3) (16) (3) (15)

 

 

Cooking and creating a tactile, visual, and olfactory environmental atmosphere
experience, concentrating on combining individual segments into a congruent
whole.

See Table 11 for a breakdown on participants’ enjoyment in working with part and whole

dynamics by group and program. While more than half of the participants in both groups and

both programs indicated they enjoy working with part-whole dynamics, members of the Janusian

56

group and the Marital and Family Therapy specialization reported they derive greater pleasure
from this activity than their respective counterparts.

Table 9 - Skills Useful in Intervention Work by Group and Program
—

 

Group Program
Areas J anusian Homospatial FS MFT
(n= 17) (n =20) (n= 19) (n = 18)
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
% % % % % % % %

(n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)

 

Crafts 11.7 88.2 20.0 80.0 21.0 78.9 11.1 88.8
(2) (15) (4) (l6) (4) (15) (2) (16)

Literary 17.6 82.3 20.0 80.0 15.7 84.2 22.2 77.7
Arts (3) (14) (4) (16) (3) (16) (4) (14)

Music 23.5 76.4 30.0 70.0 10.5 89.4 44.4 55.5
(4) (13) (6) (14) (2) (17) (8) (10)

Science 11.7 88.2 15.0 85.0 15.7 84.2 11.1 88.8
(2) (15) (3) (17) (3) (16) (2) (16)

Theatre 17.6 82.3 15.0 85.0 5.2 94.7 27.7 72.2
Arts (3) (14) (3) (17) (1) (18) (5) (13)

Therapy 23.5 76.4 50.0 50.0 31.5 68.4 44.4 55.5
(4) (13) (10) (10) (6) (13) (8) (10)

Visual 17.6 82.3 30.0 70.0 10.5 89.4 38.8 61.1
Arts (3) (14) (6) (14) (2) (17) (7) (11)

Other 11.7 88.2 40.0 60.0 26.3 73.6 27.7 72.2
Areas (2) (15) (8) (12) (5) (14) (5) (13)

—__.J

Participants were also asked to identify what it was that attracted them to their particular

 

 

degree program. Once again, responses were varied but recurrent themes were evident:

The Family and Child Ecology and Marital and Family Therapy philosophy is
most consistent with personal philosophy/theology of families and change.

Taking time to explore self and interactions with others on a deeper level.

57

The holistic approach.
Understand families in the context of the larger forces in their lives.

Table 10 - Perceived Differently from Others as a Child by Group and Program

 

 

 

_
Group Program
Perceived Janusian Homospatial FS MFI‘
Differently % % % %
(n) (11) (n) (n)
Yes 47.0 45.0 52.6 38.8
(3) (9) (10) (7)
No 29.4 20.0 15.7 33.3
(5) (4) (3) (6)
Unsure 23.5 35.0 31.5 27.7
(4) (7) (6) (5)
Total N 17 20 19 18

 

 

Interest in topical area, multidisciplinary nature of the program, and opportunity
to develop a unique program of studies.

To see beyond the person and his/her disease.

Working with the whole family unit and help the system rather than dealing only
with the individual.

Essay Content

Within the essay portion, the 37 participants responded to five questions for each of six

slides (Homospatial condition) or slide sets (Janusian condition). Therefore, each participant

created 30 essay responses for a grand total of 1,110 essays.

58

Table 11 - Enjoy Working With Parts Within Wholes and Wholes Within Parts
by Group and Program
—

 

 

 

Group Program

Enjoy Part/ Janusian Homospatial FS MFI‘
Whole % % % %
Dynamics (n) (n) (n) (D)
Yes 76.4 65.0 68.4 72.2

(13) (13) (13) (13)
No 17.6 30.0 26.3 22.2

(3) (6) (5) (4)
Left Blank 5.8 5.0 5.2 5.5

(1) ( 1) (1) (1)
Total N 17 20 19 18

 

 

Metaphgr Data

Since the primary focus of this dissertation is the creation of metaphors (responses to
Questions 4 and 5 rather than Questions 1 through 3), 444 of the 1,110 responses were analyzed--
222 responses to a request for a problem-oriented metaphor and 222 responses to a request for
a solution-oriented metaphor.

It is important to note, however, that many participants created multiple responses to each
slide set (Janusian condition) or slide (Homospatial condition) as per directions in the Instruction
Booklet. Some of these responses were not metaphorical. These other responses were
categorized and coded as dead metaphors, similes, and other nonmetaphors. Tables 12 and 13
provide a summary of the number of metaphors, extra metaphors, dead metaphors, similes, other
nonmetaphors, and left blank responses provided by participants within experimental groups and

within program specializations, respectively.

59

Table 14 provides a summary of the number of metaphors created in response to a single
question. Thus, in responding to Question 4 (create a metaphor for a proposed problem) and
Question 5 (create a metaphor for a proposed solution), participants in the Janusian condition
created a single metaphor

89 times compared to 110 Table 12 - Responses to Metaphor-Related Items by Group
—

 

 

 

single metaphors created Group
in the H01110513311111 Responses Janusian Homospatial Total
condition. Metaphor 13 1 155 286
Tables 15 and 16 Dead Metaphor 5 11 16

provide breakdowns on 31mm 8 5 13
participants’ initial Other Non-Metaphor 47 45 92

Left Blank 13 24 37
responses to the request

Total 204 240 444
to create a problem-

Extra Metaphors 57 57 114
oriented metaphor by

Grand Total 261 297 558
slide/slide set and group

 

 

#

and a solution-oriented
metaphor by slide/slide set and group, respectively. These data indicate the participants in the
Homospatial group created more metaphors than those in the Janusian group. Participants in the
Homospatial group also created more metaphors in response to slide 6-the most complex image--
than did participants in the Janusian group. Further, comparing number of metaphors produced
in response to each image for each question, participants in the Homospatial group created more
metaphors in 8 out of 12 cases. Tables 17 and 18 provide breakdowns on participants’ initial
responses to the request to create a problem-oriented metaphor by slide/slide set and program and
a solution-oriented metaphor by slide/slide set and program, respectively. These data indicate

participants in the Family Studies program created more initial metaphors than those in the

60
Marital and Family Therapy specialization. However, Tables 17 and 18 also indicate that

participants in the Marital and Family Therapy program created more metaphors in response to
Slide 6, Question 4-the most complex image—than those in the Family Studies program. The
individuals in the two programs created the same number of metaphors for Slide 6, Question 5.

This multiplicity of response types necessitated a variety of coding and analysis-related
decisions. Every response identified as a metaphor was coded and counted. If a participant
created two or more metaphors in response to a single slide set or slide, the additional metaphors
were coded, counted, and

listed in the extra
Table 13 - Responses to Metaphor-Related Items by Program
metaphor column of —

 

 

 

 

Program

Tables 12 and 13. If a

Responses FS MFI‘ Total
participant developed a

Metaphor 149 136 285
dead metaphor, simile,

Dead Metaphor 10 7 17
and/or a response coded

Simile 6 7 13
as Other nonmetaphor m Other Nonmetaphor 49 43 92
addition to a metaphor, Left Blank 13 24 37
these additional responses Totals 227 217 444
were not coded and

tallied in any manner.

For example, a participant in the Homospatial condition responded to Slide 1 (See Appendix D)
with the following: "The solutionufind the natural source of connection between people--’No man
is an island.” "Find the natural source of connection between people" was analyzed and tallied
as a metaphor while "No man is an island" was considered a dead metaphor and neither counted
nor analyzed further. Therefore, the figures in Tables 12 and 13 may be misleading in that many

participants created multiple responses for each slide image that were not metaphors. Thus, there

61

were many more dead metaphors, similes, and other nonmetaphors than indicated by the table.

If a participant created a dead metaphor, a simile, and an other nonmetaphor response, only the

dead metaphor was coded and tallied.
coding and analysis of all responses.
Only 37 of 444 metaphor-related
items were left blank—a strikingly low
number of incidences in which
participants could think of nothing to

say and/or ran out of time.

Analysis of Metaphors

The process of analyzing meta-
phorsntheir structure, content, meaning,
form, and intentionality, is a highly
complex enterprise (Brooke-Rose, 1958;

Embler, 1966; Hausman, 1989; Levin,

In summary then, metaphors took precedence in the

Table 14 - Frequency of Metaphors per Question by Group

—

 

 

 

Group
Number of J anusian Homospatial
Metaphors
One 89 1 10
Two 3 1 37
Three 10 5
Four -- 2
Five -- 1
Six -- --
Seven 1 --
Total 13 1 155

1988; Rogers, 1978; Sacks, 1979; Sapir & Crocker, 1977). It

 

is a process that may be

appropriately considered more of an art than a science as the approaches, tools, and techniques

employed by scholars have been a source of endless debate from the time of the Ancient Greeks

to the present. Indeed, Black (1979) has noted that no manuals exist for determining the

meanings of metaphors. Although the creator of a metaphor clearly means something in

producing a metaphorical statement, one cannot consult a dictionary or encyclopedia to accurately

and precisely identify or decipher that meaning.

62

 

 

 

 

 

w m. m w a. e w. 4 . 2. z .46..

.o. .N. .N. ... .2. 8. .m. .N. .c. .2. .e.
9... ed. as of. 4.: e... 2... e e

.o. .o. .o. .N. .3. 8. .N. .o. .o. .2. .e.
.2: .48 E . S... a m

.N. .m. 8. .n. .2. E .e. .o. .o. .e. .e.
a... 9m. 9n. ode an «.4 e8 .4 4

... .m. 8. .N. .2. ... .m. ... .o. .2. .e.
as 98 3.. 98 am a: an 2... e n

... .m. .o. .o. .2. .o. .m. .o. ... .2. .5
.2 ca. 3... a: an 4.2. s N

.4. .o. 2. 8. .2. .4. 8. ... .o. .2. .e.
98 as l 92 SN e.“ l. «.2 a .
as... .5582 as... 88.82 .8 8.5
.3 use 2.55 48.. Sense: :3 65.. 2.52 48.. ceases: 24.5

.3"... .5 n...
4892.— .azaemoEe: 4.82:.— 5.35:.
4 22.5.50

T
966 4e. .8 8.2.8.2 .3 .4 8.8.5. 38.82 385.838.. e 286 e. .88.. e. 3888.. 2...... - m. use...

 

63

l

 

 

 

 

2 Nm N .r. S 2 8 4 n 4m 2 .36...
.N. .4. .... .... .2. ... .e. .N. .... .N. .e.
...2 .....N ...me am nmm ...... N..4 ... e
... .4. ... .... .4.. ... .4. .... ... .... .e.
...n .....N ...m ...... es 2N an 54.. .... n
.4. .N. .... ... .... .... .... .... .N. .N. .e.
.....N ...mm ...n 34 3.4 ...: N..4 s 4
... .... ... .... .2. .N. .N. .... ... .2. .e.
...m 99. ...m .....m a: a: an .....m a 4.
.N. .e. .... ... .4. ... .e. .... ... .e. .e.
...2 can ...m ...m4 e.“ one. an eNm a N
.4. .N. .... ... .2. .4. .N. ... .... .2. .e.
.....N ...2 ...n ...me WNN N... am ”an .... .
:5... Ease: is... .3982 .8 44.5
...3 85.. 2.52 48: ceases. :3 85o 4.25 :8: Sense—... ESE
...Nue. En...
4.83.5 Ragga—...: 4.83.... 5.3::
m 29.555

 

 

{
9.20 .45. .om 025325 .3 Am cacao—.0. 3.3802 “Santoruozflom a 33.5 o. 2.260% c. manages“ HE:— . e— 039—.

}

 

 

 

 

 

w 4. 4 N E e 2 N c N» 2 Bob

.... ... ... .... .2. .... .4. .N. ... .. .. .4.
3 on a...» ...N ...m. on Em .5 o

.... .... .... .... .2. .... .N. .... .N. .2. ....
8. m2 n2 9% ... m

.N. .m. .... .N. .N. ... .m. .... ... .N.. ....
.... EN .... .....m 2 $N on Nae & 4

... .4. ... ... .... ... .4. .... ... .2. ....
Wm N.NN 3 Wm ...4 nm ...N an 4.3 ... m

.... .4. .... .... .4.. ... .N. .... ... .2. ....
N.NN ...: 3 m2 on ...2. N N

.n. .... .N. .... .... .N. .... .... .... .2. ....
.....N .... .... ...n. N4» m .
is... .3392 ~.52.. .2354: 3 8.5
:3 8:5 2.55 48: 82.54:. :3 .55.. 2.55 48.— 8.1502 3......

Aw“ " CV Aam Ill. Ev
282? 2.5,. .4 3.3:. 8.45m ...:5.
v 26.5%0

 

semen. ..5 .8 02.9026 .. .4 3:85. Eases. 4285.50.32. 4 286 2 .8943. 0. Baas... 3...: - 2 ~34...

65

 

 

 

 

l
N.. NN N N on : NN N N 8 z .584
.N. .4. ... .... .2. ... .N. .N. .... .2. ....
E: N.NN N.N N.NN N.N N..N N2 N.NN a o

... .N. ... .... .N.. ... .N. .o. ... .N.. ....
N.N N2 N.N N.NN N.N N.NN N.N N.NN & .N

.N. .N. .... .N. .N. ... .N. .... ... .N.. ....
...... N.NN .... N.NN N.N ..N4 N.N 4N4 & 4

.N. .4. .... ... .N. .N. .N. ... .... .. .. ....
.... N.NN N.N .....N 2.. N.NN N.N N.NN ... N

... .N. .... ... .N. .N. .... .... ... .N. ....
N.N N.NN N.N .....N N2 N..N N.N 4N4 .N N

.N. .N. ... ... .N. .N. .N. .... .... .4.. .4.
N.NN .... N.N N.N can N2 N2 N.NN g _
.5... .2.—542 .5... .235»: 3 4.5m
:3 $5.. 2.5% 48: 82.54:. .3 .35.. 2.55 48: 8.2542 35m

.2 u... .2"...
Rage ...—5,.— a 3.22 8.35 ...:a...
m 22.585

 

 

i

639.. 45 .8 02.2027. 3 .N 8.325. 8.930.). 38:98:28 4 386 2 .830... o. 889.8... .42... - 2 434...

Defining a Metaphor; A Matter of Life and Death

Analysis of the data presented numerous formidable challenges. Sorting and categorizing
the responses to items four and five (create a metaphor for a perceived problem and another for
a proposed solution, respectively) according to metaphor, dead metaphor, simile, other
nonmetaphor, and left blank was anything but straightforward. Only left blank responses were
simple and clear.

On the surface, one may assume that a dead metaphor would be relatively easy to
identify. However, "life is a bowl of cherries" notwithstanding, the precise stage in the life of
a metaphor in which it is appropriate to pronounce it dead appears to require something more
than finely honed clinical skills. Indeed, the use of some otherwise dead metaphors in response
to certain images was, in fact, highly original and creative. One example is "Two ships passing
in the night, the Monitor and the Merrimack" in response to Slide Set 1 (Janusian condition),
Question 4 (stem and two leaves and a couple on a bench--See Appendix C). Here, a well-worn
cliche is given new life by the addition of reference to two historical battleships. The vague
conflict between the man and woman in the slide is imbued with historical significance and great
specificity. Time and space are integrated and their connection-{he stem that unites the couple--is
conflict-{he source of distance that ultimately brought the two great warships together. In the
dead version, the two ships merely passed in the night. However, in this revitalized form, the
two ships actually engaged and confronted each other--a solution the participant apparently had

in mind for this couple. In the present study, dead metaphors resuscitated in this manner were

coded as metaphors.

67

It is intriguing to note that a participant in the Homospatial condition used "Two ships
passing in the night" in response to slide four (The "Kiss" and the "Tragedy," superimposed).
Since no effort was made to revitalize this metaphor, it was coded as dead.

Examples of metaphors coded as dead include the following: "Life is a bitch" (in response
to Slide 5--See Appendix F); "Children live in the house of tomorrow" (in response to Slide 6--
Dutch landscape, adult tossing child, Moore family sculpture group, and butterfly wing,
superimposed); and "A bridge over troubled waters " (in response to Slide Set 4—the "Kiss" and
the "Tragedy," presented separately).

Well known quotations from biblical and literary sources were cause for considerable
anguish and vacillation in the coding process. For example, in response to Slide Set 1 (See
Appendix C), a participant proffered "I am the vine, you are the branches." Another example
is the use of "A little child shall lead them" in response to Slide Set 4 (the "Kiss" and the
"Tragedy" presented separately). While certainly appropriate to the image, this is a very well
known biblical phrase and nothing was done to revitalize it. It was, therefore, coded as a dead
metaphor.

Despite warnings on page 3 of the Instruction Booklet, some respondents formulated
similes rather than metaphors. These, too, became problematic. For example, in extended
statements where segments including the terms like or as appear in parentheses, one may be
tempted to ignore the material in parentheses and code the remaining material as a metaphor.
Other scenarios involve presentation of a simile followed by an actual metaphor that builds on
the simile in some way. The temptation to salvage what might otherwise have been a very fine
metaphor was resisted and the presence of like or as within a statement was sufficient cause for
coding as simile.

It is particularly important to note that the category other nonmetaphor includes a variety

of responses that do not fit in any of the other categories (metaphor, dead metaphor, simile, and

68

left blank). These responses ranged from the mundane such as "Sorry, I just can’t think of
anything" to extraordinarily creative, sensitive, insightful, and sophisticated essays that both
incorporate and transcend the images from which they were generated. Some other nonmetaphor
responses included detailed descriptions or explanations of the content of the images or of the
images as visual metaphors, themselves. As rich and meaningful as statements such as these may
be, for the purposes of the present study, they were coded as other nonmetaphor.

At this juncture, it may be important to reflect on the fact that when a therapist sees a
family in a clinic, the therapist observes the family operating in part and whole dynamics,
verbally interacts with individual members, and hears their descriptions and perceptions of their
problems. In this study, however, there is no verbal interaction with the images. The images
are static in that they do not move as living beings do and the images do not verbally articulate
their perceptions of the problems they experience. Also, in a clinical setting, the therapist creates
effective metaphors during and after observing, interacting, and listening to families’ perceptions.
Therefore, the creation of a story or description of a problem suggested by these images may be
creative, insightful, and sophisticated, but it does not move beyond mere description to creation
of a metaphor. Thus, if a participant in this study created a story designed to illustrate what they
see going on within a particular image, that was not considered sufficient. The participant must
move beyond the story or description to present a metaphor. It was, nevertheless, very difficult
to toss out (i.e., code as other nonmetaphor) these highly creative responses.

Once the left blanks, and relatively clear-cut dead metaphors, similes, and other
nonmetaphors were set aside, determining that the remaining responses were, indeed, metaphors
was anything but a foregone conclusion. In countless instances, answering the seemingly simple

question "Is this or is this not a metaphor?" proved extraordinarily difficult. Simple replacement
metaphors presented few problems (e.g., "Life is a dance" or "a flower"-"a tug-of-war" or "a

kaleidoscope"). Each of these would readily stand alone as metaphors in their own right.

69

However, many responses were not of the simple replacement variety. They were presented in
the form of single words, phrases, sentences, entire paragraphs, drawings, parables, fables,
quotations, and excerpts from poems that may not, at first glance-or even following careful,
prolonged study and reflection--be recognized as metaphors. Some could be read as mere
descriptions of perceived content, processes, or dynamics within the images. Others could be
read as captions for the images. Some were lengthy, detailed, convoluted, and complex. Others
were simple, elegant, concise. Consider this response to Slide 6 in which a landscape, a Henry
Moore sculpture of a family, a microscopic enlargement of a butterfly wing, and a parent tossing
a child in the air are superimposed: "We need to catch the child within us and embrace it." In
one instance (Slide Set 1, Question 4), slide A was actually used as a metaphor for slide B.
Many metaphors created in response to Question 5 were clearly related to those created in
response to Question 4--the former building upon the latter in some meaningful way. Others bore
no evident relation one to the other. Many responses presented a metaphor embedded within the
middle of a lengthy essay. These instances required difficult decision-making regarding where
a particular metaphor begins and ends. Indeed, some embellishments actually contained a second
metaphor.

Over time, it became evident that the rendering of a clear decision regarding the status
of a particularly ambiguous response as a metaphor or other nonmetaphor necessitated careful
examination of the participant’s responses to Questions 1, 2, and 3 (describe everything you see
in the image; identify any personal reactions you may have to the image; and identify a problem
suggested by the image, respectively). Thus, particularly ambiguous responses to items 4 and
5 needed to be examined within the contexts of the responses that preceded them and within the

contexts of the images themselves—an arduous task, to be sure. One way around this task would
have been to attend only to the simple replacement metaphors and relegate anything else to an

other category. However, this would result in a loss of tremendous richness. If these more

70

ambiguous responses coded as metaphors were presented to an outside observer or reviewer, as
Rothenberg had done in his experimental studies, they would doubtlessly be dismissed as
something other than metaphors. Support for this approach to the problem may be found in
Booth’s (1979) assertion that "what any metaphor s_ay§ or M or dog will always be to some
degree alterable by altering its context" (p. 173).

While pouring over responses to Questions 1 through 3 in order to identify useful clues
to responses 4 and 5, the researcher discovered that many respondents created wonderful
metaphors for those items. For example, in response to Slide Set 1 (See Appendix C), Question
3 (define a problem suggested by the image), one respondent wrote: "A wilting of a relationship. "
Here, a perceived element or process within one image--wilting--was conjoined with a perceived
element or process within another image—a relationship. Each retains its autonomy while
simultaneously brought together in the creation of something new-a decidedly Homospatial
process.

Reviewing responses to items 1 through 3 also revealed a clear progression in
participants’ thinking culminating in creation of a metaphor-each response continuing to build
one upon the other in the process of Articulation. For example, the process of deciding whether
to code the following three responses to Slide 4, Question 4 ("The Kiss" and "The Tragedy") as
metaphors proved exceedingly difficult: "The real and the ideal" . . . "The expectation and the
actuality" . . . "Storybook romance vs. real life". After reading responses to items 1 - 3,
however, a resolution presented itself rather quickly. A decision was made to code these as
metaphors since it was clear that the person was working with antitheses and oppositional
elements from the outsetnkey components in Janusian process thinking.

Due to discoveries such as this, all responses to metaphor-related items were reviewed
and carefully examined twice, with particular attention paid to those previously coded as dead

metaphor, simile, and other nonmetaphor. During this second review process, a discovery was

71

made that strikingly illustrated how failure to attend carefully to context will lead one astray.
"Expectations within a child’s range" (response to Slide 6, Question 4) had previously been coded
as other nonmetaphor. Clearly, standing alone, it would hardly be considered a metaphor by
anyone. In reviewing this participant’s responses to Questions 1 through 3, however, it became
clear that the participant was focusing on the tossing of the child into the air as a metaphor for
parental expectations for achievement, high standards, and inequality in children’s access to
resources that promote optimal development and achievement. The term range, then, may have
to do with the distance between the parent’s outstretched arms and the child’s body as well as the
importance of holding expectations for the child that are appropriate to the child’s range of
abilities and potential.

In order to provide something of a feel for the quality and variety of the metaphors
created in this study, Appendices J, K, L, and M include a listing of metaphors developed for
the images presented in Appendices C (Slide Set 1, Janusian condition), D (Slide 1, Homospatial
condition), E (Slide Set 5, Janusian condition), and F (Slide 5, Homospatial condition).

In general, the Janusian group appeared to formulate more clear, direct metaphors than
the Homospatial group. The former tended to create more single-word, single-sentence, brief,
staccatto responses compared to the latter’s longer, more convoluted, and complex responses.
The Janusian group also formulated more simple replacement metaphors than the Homospatial
group. This may explain, in part, why metaphors created in the Homospatial condition proved
to be significantly more difficult to analyze. These findings would tend to support Rothenberg’s
(1979, 1988a) assertion that Homospatial thinking is a higher-order, more sophisticated function
than Janusian. On the other hand, a single-word metaphor such as "bridges" (in response to Slide
Set 1, Question 5 in the Janusian condition-See Appendix C), coded as both part and whole,

could garner as many as five Holonic emphases.

72

A particularly refreshing discovery was the finding that humor figured prominently in the
responses generated by participants in this study. For example, one participant in the
Homospatial condition responded to the superimposed image of the older adult couple on opposite
benches and the two leaves and stem (See Appendix D) with: "Ain’t life a birch?" Here, the
respondent reworked or revitalized a dead metaphor in a manner in which the natural life forms
and the pain of a conflictual human relationship are brought together in a wonderfully subtle and
humorous way. Another participant in the Janusian condition responded to Slide B in Slide Set
3, Question 4 in which the lower half of an infant’s body is presented: "This little girl is
walking/marching into life. There’s so much ahead (Where’s her head?)." Here, a single word
(ahead) is bisected (a head) and the image of a future life path and the absence of a human head

in the image are meaningfully brought together.

lnte ation as e B tter P f Discr tion

The next step in the coding process involved making distinctions among metaphors that
made specific reference to an element within a particular image-discrete or dzflerentiateduand
those that moved beyond the specifics of the images in the creation of something entirely new--
integrated. These distinctions according to type would be used to test the level of sophistication
and creativity between participants in the Janusian and Homospatial conditions. This task, too,
proved difficult. A list of criteria were developed to address the multiple contingencies present
in the data (See Figures 6 and 7).

Table 19 provides a breakdown of discrete and integrated metaphors by group. Tables
20 and 21 provide breakdowns on the type of first problem-oriented metaphor created by

slide/slide set and group and type of first solution-oriented metaphor created by slide/ slide set and

73
Discrete

1. Specific reference made to Slide A and B in presenting separate metaphors
for each.

2. Specific reference made to the content of Slide A and B in presenting separate
metaphors for each.

3. Separate metaphors created for each slide without specific reference made to
each slide. This was usually done by presenting two distinct
statements/metaphors on separate lines, separated by double or more space-
horizontally or vertically.

4. One metaphor on one line for one slide and a dead metaphor, simile, or other
non-metaphor an another line.

5. A single metaphor that clearly emphasizes the content in one slide only.

Integrated

l. A metaphor that goes beyond the two separate images in presenting something
entirely new, i.e., no direct reference made to either slide.

2. A metaphor in which key elements in each slide are presented as
interchangeable (e. g., "Shake the tree and rearrange the leaves-(people)-so both
can view the same world," Slide Set 1, Question 5).

Figure 6: Criteria for Coding Type of Metaphors in Janusian Condition

Discrete

1. Specific reference made to a particular theme, person or object in the image.

Integrated

1. No specific reference made to a particular theme, person, or object in the
image.

2. A metaphor that goes beyond the multiple images within a single slide in
presenting something entirely new.

figure 7: Criteria for Coding Type of Metaphors in Homospatial
Condition

74

group, respectively. These data indicate participants in the Homospatial group created more
integrated metaphors than those in the Janusian group. Tables 22 and 23 provide breakdowns
on the type of first problem-oriented metaphor created by slide/slide set and program and type
of first solution-oriented metaphor created by slide/slide set and program, respectively. These
data indicate participants in the Marital and Family Therapy program created more integrated
metaphors than those in the Family Studies specialization.

The process 0f making Table 19 - Discrete and Integrated Metaphors by

 

 

Group
discrete and integrated distinctions —
. . Type

presented some unique challenges in Group Discrete Integrated Total
dealing with Janusian condition Janusian 93 95 133
participants who created: (a) separate Homospatial 98 114 212
metaphors for each slide; or (b) a Total 191 209 400
single metaphor for only one of the

 

 

multiple slide sets. Although Janusian participants were exposed to images presented side by side,
they were instructed to create metaphors that these multiple images together would suggest to
them. Stated differently, they were asked to create as many metaphors as possible that
incorporated both images rather than, perhaps, three metaphors for slide A and one metaphor for
slide B. Responses of this kind served to artificially inflate the number of metaphors created by
participants in the Janusian condition compared to those in the Homospatial condition wherein
only a single image was presented in each trial.

When reviewing this tabular material, it is absolutely essential to keep in mind that both
the Janusian and Homospatial groups were, in fact, at one and the same time, seeing exactly the
same images and completely different images. In side-by-side and superimposed configurations,
the content of the images was at once identical and very different, indeed. This has major

implications for the present analysis and in implications for future research.

75

 

 

 

 

 

NN . N4 N4 ..N NN .4 z .505

.N. .... .4. .N. .N. .N. ....
...NN ...NN o...N 4....N N..4 4.8 m. e

.N. .N. .N. .N. .N. .2. ....
...2 ...N4 ...N4 N... 4.mN N.NN s N

.N. G. .N. .N. .N. .4. ....
.....4 .....N .....N 3.4 4dN N.NN ... 4

.N. .4. .N. .N. .N. .4. ....
.....4 .....N .34 4.¢N 3.4 N.NN & N

.4. .. .. .N. .4. .N. .. .. ....
.....N ...NN ...NN N.NN ...: N40 ... N

.N. .N. .N.. .N. .N. .... ....
...NN ...2 ...B 4.aN 4.NN N..4 e .
2.8.3.2 «38.3.... em 9.5m
32 3.28.:— 8325525 82 3.28.... 8.3582... 325

...NH... .2"...
832m 3.38:8: v.83...— 5.9.5:.
4 203.350

 

9.20 45 .8 8.6.3.6 ... .4 8:85. 4386 3.302 385-8032“. E... .o 25. - ..N 2.3.

76

 

 

 

 

 

NN ..4 ..N ..4 4N .N 2 .so...

.... .2. .N. .2. .N. .N. ....
...NN .....N ...N. N.NN 4.aN N... e o

G. .N. .N. .... .4. .N. ....
.....N ...N4 ...NN N.NN N.NN N..4 * N

.N.. .4. .4. .2. .... ... ....
...8 .....N o.oN N.NN N.NN .3 e 4

.2. .N. .N. G. G. .N. ....
can ...NN ...N. N.NN N.NN 4.NN e N

.. .. .N. .4. .N. .N. .4. ....
own ...NN .....N .....4 4....N N.NN ... N

.... .N. .N. .... .N. .N. ....
QNN ...NN .....4 N. .4 .....4 ...: e .
2.8.3.3 2.8.3.... 3 0....N
...z 8.89.... 34:53....— 87. 8.89.... 3353...... .225

SN"... .2"...
N88...— 3338Ee= N88...— 5.35:.
m ZOZMHDO

 

{

955 .5 .8 02.2023 .... .N 8.326. 8.8.0 eases. 38:98.38 Er. .0 25 - .N 2......

77

 

 

 

 

 

 

...N N4 ..N NN NN N4 2 .50...

.N. .N.. .N. .N. .N. .N. ....
.... N.NN ...N. ..N4 N.NN N..N & o

.... .N. .2. .4. .N. .... ....
4.44 N.NN ...N N..N 4N4 ... N

.N. .N. .4. .N. .N. .N. ....
.....N N.NN N.NN N.NN N..N N..N ... 4

.N. .N. .N. .N. .N. .... ....
N.NN N.NN N.NN N..N N..N ......N e N

.4. .N. .N. .4. .N. .2. ....
N.NN 4.44 N.NN ...N N..N N..NN ... N

.N. .N. .N. .N. .N. . . .. ....
N.NN .... .....N ...N. N.NN N.NN .... .
438...... 2.8.3.... ...N m.....N
...z 4829.... 8.35.32... ...2 3.88.... 2.358....— 325

.N."... .2"...
22...... .....a... a 3.5.. .........N .....a...
4 £25.50

832.. ...... ...N 04:23.5 ... .4 .8225. 438.0 3.3304,. 40.85-8032. ...... .o 2...... - NN n......h

78

 

 

 

 

.N NN .N o4 NN NN z .48...

.N. .N. .N. .... .N. .N. ....
4.44 4.44 .... 4N4 N.NN ...N. e N

.N. .N. .N. .N. .N. .4. ....
N.NN ...N 4.44 N.NN ..N4 ...N ... N

.N.. .N. ... .2. .N. .4. ....
N.NN N.NN N.N N.NN N.NN ...N ... 4

, .N. .N. .N. .N. .N. .N. ....
4.44 4.44 .... ..N4 N.NN N..N e N

.N. .N. .N. .2. .4. .N. ....
.....N N.NN ...N. N.NN ...N N..N ... N

.... .4. .N. .N. .N. .N. ....
.....N N.NN :N N.NN 4...4 N.NN .. .
2.8.3.... 2.8.3.... ...N ......N
...z 8.38.... 8.4.2.22...— ...z 8.88.... 83.82.65 ...—...N

.N."... .N."...
2.8.; .....a... a 3.3.. 8......N .....a...
m 22.5.50

 

 

semen. ...... ...N 44:28.5 .... .N 8.8.5. 8.86 384.»... 8.8.5-8..28 .4.... .o 2:... - NN 2...;

79
Assigning Holonic Emphgg; A Diflggug Between Pam and Wholes

Not unlike defining metaphors and evaluating them according to type, assigning Holonic
emphases presented difficult, compelling challenges. In order to determine the number of
Holonic emphases within a particular metaphor, it was necessary to examine and label key words
in the statement as part-oriented, whole-oriented or both part and whole-oriented. A simple
example would be the replacement metaphor created in response to Slide Set 5 (See Appendix
E): "Being uncooperative is a back to back experience". The part-whole designations would

appear as follows:

uncooperative = back to back experience

whole parts

As in every other aspect of this study, the process of assigning part and whole
designations to key words was not a simple, straightforward task. The coding process was guided
by several important conceptual issues: (a) the term whole implies part and part, inevitably,
implies whole; (b) the two terms stand in fundamental relation with neither having any meaning
apart from the other; and (c) Koestler’s (1978) assertion that all phenomena are wholes unto
themselves, all phenomena are parts of other wholes, and all wholes are contained within the
component parts that comprise them. However, it soon became evident that one could not
automatically designate all key terms in each metaphor as both part and whole. Each metaphor
made its own demands within this province, with some terms functioning solely or predominately
as: (a) part in relation to other terms as wholes; (b) whole in relation to other terms as parts; and

(c) both part and whole, simultaneously. Each metaphor, therefore, had to be analyzed as a

80

unique, original entity with an eye toward several critical questions: (a) are these elements
typically considered part and/or whole in general usage?; (b) are these elements functioning as
part and/or whole within the context of this particular metaphor (e. g., a term considered a whole
within the context of one statement may function as a part or both part and whole within
another)?; (c) are these elements functioning as part and/or whole in relation to the visual image
from which it was generated?; and (d) are these elements functioning as part and/or whole in
relation to the responses made to previous questions in the protocol?

It is important to consider the multiplicity of meanings operating within the terms part
and whole. The term, part, alone, can present formidable conceptual challenges. For example,
designated as both part and whole, the term leaves as part may indicate that there is, simply,
more than one leaf. Part, then, can indicate plurality or parts. Part, here, may also mean that
these leaves are part of a larger whole beyond themselves, such as a tree. Part may further mean
that these leaves are at once a part and a whole entity unto themselves. If the term tree was
present in a particular metaphor in addition to the above, part may be used to indicate that a tree
is: (a) comprised of many parts (e.g., trunk, branches); (b) a whole entity itself; and (c) as part
and whole, it stands in fundamental relation to its leaves in the formation of multiple, systemic
patterns and linkages.

A second example may be illustrative. A rose may be considered both a part and a
whole. It is a whole because it is a complete entity in and of itself. It is a part because it is
comprised of parts (i.e., stem, leaves, thorns). It may also be a part in and of itself as one of
many roses in a floral arrangement or a bush. Further, we may see continuous interaction among
the various parts of stem, leaves, and thorns, each of which also functions, simultaneously, as
a whole in the interaction process. Another example would be the term seasons. It, too, was
designated both part and whole because there are four discrete periods of time or parts within the

broad rubric, seasons. These four parts are also wholes unto themselves. Complicating matters

81

further, there are, in fact, a multiplicity of parts within each of the four seasons, themselves. As
simultaneous parts and wholes, interactions continuously occur among these elements.

In situations where one element in a metaphor is coded as both part and whole, it was
necessary to address: (a) the dynamics between the elements weighted as either part or whole;
(b) the dynamics between the elements weighted as both part and whole; and (c) the dynamics
within the single element weighted both part and whole.

Consider a less complex example:

Butterfly’s cocoon

part whole part whole

A butterfly is a part of a cocoon in relation to cocoon designated as a whole. A butterfly is also
a whole entity in and of itself. A butterfly is further comprised of multiple parts within itself as
a whole. A cocoon shares similar part-whole characteristics. By rating both butterfly and cocoon
as both part and whole, then, one can code part (butterfly) as whole and whole (butterfly) as part.
One can code part (butterfly) within whole (cocoon) and whole (butterfly) within part (cocoon).
Finally, one can code interaction among parts (butterfly comprised of multiple parts) and
interaction among parts and wholes (butterfly’s parts interacting within itself as a whole and in
relation to cocoon). Each is reversible (part as whole and whole as part), capable of structural
transformation (part within whole and whole within part), and evidences systemic patterns and
linkages (interaction among parts and interaction among parts and wholes). A return to the

Conceptual Model in Figure 1 may be helpful at this juncture.

82

It is important to keep in mind the multiplicity of possible combinations operating within
Holonic emphases. Consider the following response to Slide Four, Question 4 ("The Kiss" and

"The Tragedy):

The real and the ideal

part whole part whole

Interaction among parts and wholes was one of the Holonic emphases assigned to this metaphor.

Following is a breakdown of the meanings operative in this designation, alone:

3331 1 ea]
part < --------- > part

whole < --------- > whole
part < --------- > whole

whole < --------- > part

Assigning part and whole designations frequently involved making difficult decisions
regarding what is physically possible in the natural world and what is theoretically possible within
the imagination as these apply to the meanings and intentionalities of the respondents. Some
particularly tricky problems occurred in this area when two elements within a metaphor are each

coded as both part and whole. For example:

Open the window of your mind

part whole part whole

83

Clearly, the window as part can be seen within the mind as whole and the window as whole can
be seen within the mind as part. This would enable us to legitimately code this metaphor as part
within whole and whole within part. However, this obscures the fact that we cannot say with any
certainty that it works the other way, i.e., we cannot say that the mind (as part or whole) is
within the window (as part or whole).

Rendering decisions related to part and whole designations was frequently aided by
carefully examining participants’ embellishments preceding or following a metaphor. These often
contained clues regarding the position from which a particular person is viewing an image and
the direction and trajectory of their thinking. Indeed, Rothenberg has emphasized the importance
of gaining insight into the "content of the thoughts" of particular populations (personal
communication, May 1, 1990).

This investigator worked particularly hard during the analysis process to recognize that
what he considers to be true about parts and wholes is not necessarily true for participants. A
very conscious effort was made to err on the side of conservatism. Thus, this investigator
carefully examined the contexts each metaphor operated within and made decisions based on
same. Further, notes were made on analysis forms indicating awareness of possible disparity
between researcher and participant perception:

I see ’parts’ within ’wholes,’ here. However, there is insufficient evidence to

indicate that this participant perceived in a similar manner. Therefore, ’parts

within wholes’ will not be assigned.

Using "The real and the ideal" as an example, once again, this investigator readily sees the
operation of part within whole (the real within the ideal) and whole within part (the ideal within
the real) in this metaphor. There is no evidence, however, that the creator of this metaphor

perceived each embedded within the other. Therefore, these two Holonic emphases were not

included.

34

It may be the part within whole and whole within part emphases that are most difficult,
problematic, and least common in coding of the data. Part as whole and whole as part tend to
coexist together. So, too, do interaction among parts and interaction among parts and wholes.
In dealing with part within whole and whole within part, however, it is difficult to be certain that
a participant actually sees embeddedness. For example, in "Love is a rose" (Slide 4, Question
4), the Holonic emphasis parts within whole was designated due to the generally accepted and
recognized presence of parts such as petals, stem, and leaves within the makeup of the entire
flowering plant. However, one cannot be certain that this respondent sees the entire rose within
these component parts, as Holonic theory suggests. Clearly, additional information is required
to make that particular assessment within the context of that particular metaphor.

It is essential to keep in mind that, ultimately, the structure of our language will limit the
process of assigning part and whole designations and the Holonic emphases one can generate for
all metaphors. Thus, whether part or whole is assigned to any grouping of words, certain words,
irrespective of their part or whole designations will not permit an investigator to say with
certainty that one operates within the other (part within whole and whole within part) or that an
interaction can be seen to occur among the various words. For example, the particular tense and
form of words chosen will serve a limiting function. Therefore, in some cases, assigning part-
whole designations and Holonic emphases would yield a grammatically incorrect outcome. Slight
alterations of terms may serve to clarify the meaning within a particular metaphor. In other
instances, the meaning would be absurd or ridiculous. An example of the former situation would

be the following response to Slide 1 (Homospatial condition):

Separate but equal

part whole part whole

85

It would seem appropriate to assert, among other things, the operation of part (separate) within
whole (equal) and whole (equal) within part (separate), here. The phrasing, however, is

cumbersome:

Separate within equal
and

Equal within separate

Grammatically, the form would be significantly enhanced by slight alterations such as this:

Separateness within equality
and

Equality within separateness

In this instance, these alterations did not appear to do violence to the intended meaning of the
respondent.

Once the part and whole designations were made, the relationships among key words and
their accompanying part-whole designations were examined for emphases on any of the six
categories in the Holonic Perception Rating Sheet (See Appendix B). Table 24 provides a
summary of these results within experimental groups.

Tables 25 and 26 provide breakdowns of Holonic emphases for the first problem-oriented
metaphor by slide/slide set and group and the first solution-oriented metaphor by slide/slide set
and group, respectively. These data indicate participants in the Homospatial group created
metaphors with greater depth in terms of Holonic emphases than did those in the Janusian group.

Tables 27 and 28 provide breakdowns of Holonic emphases for the first problem-oriented

86

metaphor by Slide/ Slide set arid Table 24 - Breakdown of Holonic Emphases by Group
—

 

 

 

 

program and the first solution-
Group

. . . H l ' ' H ‘
oriented metaphor by slide/slide set E31328; hum!“ omospanal
and program, respectively. These One -- --
data indicate participants in the Two -- --
Family Studies program created Three 1 5
metaphors with greater depth in terms F0“ 5 3
of Holonic emphases than did those in Five 21 20
the Marital and Family Therapy S“ 161 179

Total 188 212
program.
Within this stage of the #

analysis process, decisions made regarding part and whole designations profoundly influenced the
assigning of Holonic emphases. Thus, it became clear that not all Holonic emphases are two-way
or reciprocal. Designating one set of key terms as whole as part does not necessarily indicate
that part as whole is also operative. For example, a participant in the Janusian condition

responded to Slide Set 5 (See Appendix E) with:

Life is a whirlpool

whole part

Clearly, the designation whole (life) as part (whirlpool) is appropriate, here, as a relatively
common expression of life as a swirling, chaotic experience drawing one inexorably into a
downwardly spiraling orbit. The part (whirlpool) as whole (life) designation, however, is more
problematic. A whirlpool is not alive in the same way in which a flower, an animal, or a human

being may be. While within the realm of metaphor anything may be possible (e. g., a case can

87

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nm E w n o o o mN S m N o N o 2 3o...

.5 .... .N. ... .... .... .... .5 a. .N. .... .... .... .... .5
...nN can ...m. ...n ...aN ...Nm 3.. e o

.N. .N.. .... ... .5 .... .... .N. ...: .5 .... .... .... .... .5
...... 9mm ...n ...: .....m ......N ... n

.5 .5 .N. ... .5 .... .... .5 .5 .... .... .... ... .... .5
...8 ...... ...m. ...m ...... 3... a ... v

.5 .... ... .... .... .... .... .5 a. .... .N. .... ... .... .5
...... ...R ...n xaN qu ...: Nam ... N

.5 ...... .... .... .... .... .... .... .N.. .... .... .... .... .... .5
...N ...... EN .2.: e N

.5 ...: ... .... .... .... .... .3 .N.. .... .... .... .... .... .5
...mN .....N ...m .....N ....2 ... .
<z m. m a m N . <2 5 m a n N . .om “......m
83.5.. 9.53.. mafia... 9.8.... 3.5

...Nu5 EH5
v.88...— Eaaemofiel n88...— 5.9—:2.
v 20.5.50

9.80 ...... .om 03.9025 .3 9. 3.32.0. cease—2 358-8030...— .a..E .8 gnaw 0.8.0: ..o gonadam - mm 2.3—.

88

 

 

 

 

NN ..N ... . N o o 5. 5. N . o . o 2 3o...

.5 .N.. .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 ...: .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
...NN ...... ...N N.NN N.NN N.N 5 ...

.5 .5 .N. ... .N. .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
.....N ...? ...... ...N ...... N.NN N..N N.NN 5 N

.N.. .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 ...: .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
58 58 N.NN N. 3 ... ..

...: ...: .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
.....N .....N N.NN 55. ...N 3 5N 5 N

.. 5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
52 5.... ...N 55. ...NN ... N

.5 .. 5 .N. .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
...NN ...NN ...... N..N N.NN 5N 5 .
<2 5 m e m N . <2 5 m e m N . .om 05.5
83.5.. 9...23. 83.5.. .52.... 3.5

A€Nnflv :— "Ev
83c...— EuanmeEel v.83...— 5.9.5...
m 7.5—EEO

 

 

9.20 ...... ....m 3.5.8.5 .. .N 8.8.6. 85.30.). 3.8.5-838 .2.". .5 83.3.. 0.83.. .o 52.52.. . 5N 3......

89

 

 

 

 

5N 5. a m c N o Nn Q. 5 N o o c 2 3o...

.5 ...5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 ...5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
.... “.2 ...N on .N.. ...Nn mm 5 o

.5 .m5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .N5 .N5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
2.. 55 ...N N5. 2.. on 5 n

.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .N5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
5% 5% Wm 3 5...... 55. n... on 5 v

.5 .5 .5 .N5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .N5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
5mm ...5. .... on 5.; NS on 5 m

.5 ...5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .m5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
N.NN 5E -.. ...N ...E 5 N

.5 .. 5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .n5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
.....m ...o ...n. 55. mm 5 .
<7. 5 m a n N . <2 5 m e m N . ...m ......m
83.5... g.......... 839.... 9.5....— ......m

...—"5 ...—"5
28...: 2.5.... a 3.3:. 8......m ...:am
v 29,—.330

 

 

i

832.. ...... .8 02.5025 ... ... 858.55 ......Eos. 38.5-8033. .2.... .6. 83.3w n55...: .... €8.85 - 5N 2......

90

 

 

 

 

.m 5. w o N . o 5. an m N c c c 2 ....o...

.5 .5 .N5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 ...5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
55. 53. .... v.5. 5Nm 5 o

.5 .5 .5 .5 .N5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .N5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
EN 5% N.NN .... 53 I... 5... 5m 5 n

.N5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 ...5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
5.8 58 5N“ I... 5 e

.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
55. 5% 5m .N.. ...5. 5m 5m 5 n

.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 ...5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
5% 5.3. nm 5Nn I... 5 N

.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .N5 .N5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
5cm «.3. 5m SN N5. 5... 5 .
<2 5 m a m N . <2 5 m e m N . ...m ......m
855.5... 055...... 85.55.. .52.... ......m

....u5 ....n5
55...: 5.5.... a 3.5:. 8.5.5 2.5....
m 22.5.50

 

 

55...... ...... .8 05.5%.... .... .m 55.8.6. 55.5.2 8503-85.58 .5... .... 855.5... 05...... ... 53°38... - ..N 2......

91

certainly be made for the human or life-like qualities associated with experiencing oneself in the
grip of a whirlpool), one cannot be sure that a particular participant perceived these qualities or
attached thwe meanings to this particular metaphor.

Certain terms such as reciprocity, together, marriage, and bondage were designated both
part and whole because they can be read as terms comprised of parts and as all-encompassing
terms functioning as wholes. The Holonic emphasis interaction between parts was also assigned
to these terms because each involves an exchange or interaction between two persons. This is
a subtle difference from a part-whole relationship to include parts within the part-whole dynamic.
It gets at movement within a single term in addition to the part-whole dynamic.

The process of coding and analyzing these data made it abundantly clear that one cannot
be fully confident of what a human being sees in the area of Holonics by his or her metaphorical
statements or through other forms of communication. This situation may be analogous to
therapeutic approaches in which behavior alone is the criterion for assessing the feelings,
attitudes, and meanings a client attaches to self, family, and the larger world. It is the considered
opinion of this investigator that human beings are far more complex and multifaceted than use
of a single criterion would tend to suggest. Limitations in language, too, may fail to impart the
depth and complexity of a person’s perception. The process of coding these metaphors, then,
was a humbling experience, highlighting the importance of looking deeply, thinking deeply, and
taking time to ponder and reflect on the multiplicity of meanings in human communication and
the awareness that, ultimately, we can never fully know all that we seek.

The coding and analysis process was humbling in other ways, also. The analysis
progressed much more smoothly and quickly when the investigator remained immersed in the
data. Interruptions to attend to other tasks or activities of daily living rendered the trail cold

upon return. A process of reimmersion was necessary to regain momentum, flow, and the

92

previous level of clarity and precision in perception and decision making. This raises issues
related not only to inter-rater reliability but also intra-rater reliability.

An intriguing paradox should also be evaluated. By the time analysis of all the metaphors
was completed, the investigator’s ability to perceive subtletiw and nuances greatly increased
compared to the level of perceptual sophistication present at the beginning of the analysis process.
In order to maintain consistency and uniformity of analysis, re-evaluation of earlier metaphors
was necessary, armed with the carefully developed criteria and perceptual lenses polished and

refined over time.

Summary

The methodology, materials, and protocols employed in this study did prove productive.
Creativity was stimulated by the creation of specially prepared visual images and written response
protocols. A method of analysis designed to identify differences in created products among
experimental groups and doctoral program specializations proved useful.

The results of this study support Rothenberg’s (1979, 1988a) assertion that creative
products developed in response to exposure to Homospatial triggers tend to be superior to those
created in response to Janusian triggers. Where Rothenberg employed quality of metaphors as
a measure, the present study used richness or number of metaphors produced, depth or number
of Holonic emphases in metaphor content, and breadth or sophistication of metaphors according
to type (differentiated or integrated).

The results indicate that persons exposed to Homospatial triggers produce a greater total
number of metaphors, a greater number of integrated metaphors, and the content of their
metaphors is greater in depth in terms of Holonic emphases. These findings are particularly

intriguing when considering participants’ self-perception of creativity. While more than three-

93

fourths of all participants considered themselves to be creative and nearly three-fourths of all
participants indicated they enjoyed working with the operation of parts within wholes and wholes
within parts, self-reported expressivity and skill in the literary arts (35.1% and 2.7%,
respectively) and the visual arts (27% and 8.1%, respectively) were relatively low (Table 5).
Participants enrolled in the Family Studies program created a greater total number of initial
metaphors than their Marital and Family Therapy counterparts. Family Studies participants also
created metaphors with greater depth in terms of Holonic emphases, while Marital and Family
Therapy participants created more integrated, problem-oriented metaphors.

Issues that may have affected the quality of participants’ responses include: (a) time press
(although several people finished early); (b) lack of experience or comfort in analyzing visual
material; and (c) performance anxiety. A variety of factors may have contributed to performance
anxiety: (a) concern about poor performance in the presence of a cohort; (b) personal perception
that one is not creative; (c) personal perception that one is not art, visually, or aesthetically-
oriented; ((1) lack of experience in creating metaphors; and (e) belief that one does not think

metaphorically.

CHAPTER V: SUNIMARY AND FUTURE RECOMNIENDATIONS

Human ecologists and marital and family therapists engage in theoretical, perceptual, and
intervention activities in which the ability to conceive, manipulate, integrate, and creatively
transform the operation of parts within wholes and wholes within parts and their myriad
interrelationships is essential to excellence or superior outcomes. The purpose of this study was
to examine the presence of Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation processes in the systemic and
ecosystemic thinking and related products and outcomes among marital and family therapists and
human ecologists in training at the doctoral level.

Janusian process is defined as actively conceiving two or more opposites or antitheses
simultaneously. Homospatial process is actively conceiving two or more discrete entities
occupying the same space and resulting in the articulation of new identities. The Articulation
process includes Janusian and Homospatial processes and involves actively joining one element
with another within many different dimensions (e.g., conceptual, perceptual, volitional, affective,
and physical) in the creation of a product that is simultaneously separate or distinct and connected
to other elements.

As our world grows progressively more complex, solutions to major ecological and
family system problems will require the ability to think in an integrative, creative manner. At
present, little is known about the processes involved in seminal or germinal thinking within these
two fields. Since Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation process thinking have proven to be
operative processes among acknowledged experts within the arts and sciences, evidence of their

presence within the perceptual, conceptual, and intervention activities among doctoral candidates

94

95

specializing in family studies and marital and family therapy may provide an important focus for
professional training and further research.

This study was an exploratory, experimental, two-group design investigation of the
presence and effects of Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation process thinking among 37
Michigan State University doctoral level students engaged in theory development and intervention
strategies. Data collection consisted of a variety of written tasks completed within a controlled
setting. These tasks included creation of a series of metaphors in response to visual stimuli and
a l3-item self-administered questionnaire addressing demographic items and self-perception of
creativity.

The research questions included: (a) will development and utilization of original materials
and protocols prove useful in triggering the Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation processes
through creation of metaphors among doctoral candidates in family studies and marital and family
therapy?; (b) will development and utilization of original materials and protocols prove useful in
the analysis of created metaphors?; (c) how many disparate elements can students perceive and
integrate through use of these processes?; and (d) will the content of systemic and ecosystemic
thinking in the form of original metaphors prove superior in depth, breadth, and richness among
those exposed to images designed to trigger the Homospatial process compared to those exposed
to images designed to trigger the J anusian process?

The results of this study indicate that persons exposed to Homospatial triggers produce
a greater total number of metaphors, a greater number of integrated metaphors, and the content
of their metaphors is greater in depth in terms of Holonic emphases. These findings are
particularly intriguing when considering participants’ self-perception of creativity. While more
than three-fourths considered themselves to be creative and nearly three-fourths indicated they

enjoyed working with the operation of parts within wholes and wholes within parts, self-reported

96
expressivity and skill in the literary arts (35.1% and 2.7% , respectively) and the visual arts (27 %

and 8.1%, respectively) were relatively low.

With rwpect to Question 1, the results of this study indicated that development and
utilization of original materials did prove productive. Creativity was stimulated by the creation
and prwentation of specially prepared visual images and written response protocols. Participants
formulated a wide variety of creative written products in response to visual stimuli. Examining
the results associated with Question 2, it is clear that the development and utilization of original
materials and protocols did prove useful in the analysis of created metaphors. Regarding
Question 3, the results of this study also demonstrate that the participants were able to generate
a high number of original metaphors in response to a particularly complex image in which
multiple, disparate elements operate simultaneously. This activity parallels tasks performed
within theoretical and intervention domains common among participants in this study. Finally,
with respect to Question 4, the results of this study clearly indicate that participants exposed to
Homospatial slide triggers created original metaphors superior in depth, breadth, and richness

compared to those exposed to images designed to trigger the Janusian process.

Inextricable Relations

The concepts, constructs, processes, and outcomes addressed in this study are extremely
complex, elusive, ambiguous, and slippery. Nevertheless, Goethe long ago maintained that all
that is outside is also within and ecosystemically-oriented poets, artists, visionaries, scientists, and
sages continue to insist that we (i.e., human beings and the multiple contexts in which we are
embedded) are all one. Thus, the design and execution of this study were guided by the
conviction that neither parts nor wholes are superior to the other. Both are equally important and

each may actually be seen to be embedded within the other. The same is true of individuals and

97

families, subjects and objects, figure and ground, separateness and connectedness. Capra (1988)
refers to the perception, sensitivity, and valuing of issues of this kind as ecological awareness:
Ecological awareness, at the deepest level, is the intuitive awareness of the
oneness of all life, the interdependence of its multiple manifestations and its

cycles of change and transformation (p. 109).
An understanding of these and other ecosystemically-oriented issues may, ultimately, be seen as
a mark of wisdom. Perhaps the Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation processes may prove
to be a means toward making these elusive realities manifest on both personal/experiential and
professional levels and thereby facilitate or accelerate the development of wisdom of this kind.

The role of metaphor in this process is critical. Embler (1966) speaks most eloquently
of the power of metaphor to move beyond itself in the articulation of a multiplicity of meanings
within a singular, profound, overarching essence:

In the age of the heroes, just as men and gods are closely related in the universe,

so men and animals are related, and men and gods and nature. But each comes

forward in proud singularity. All are parts of the whole, distinct but similar,

unique but alike--one world of gods, men, beasts, plants, insects, natural forces.

Yet in the dawn of the west, all objects stand out clearly against the horizon.

The purpose of art (or at least one purpose) has not changed since the making of

the Iliad. Against the background of the many, there is only one. . . . The

guiding, prevailing master metaphor of the Western tradition centers upon the

idea of the one, the one who is m the many, but different. This intuition

matures beyond its metaphor to meaning alone, limpid, palpable meaning. ’The

rest is silence’ (p. 143).
The perception, valuing, and ongoing recreation of meaning within the conduct of personal and
professional life is inextricably related to the quality of the theories, interventions, and lives
created on a planet marked by dwindling resources and few broad-based solutions to fundamental,
interrelated personal, familial, and ecosystemic problems. Awareness of these complex
interrelationships at a deep, visceral level must become an essential imperative as a precursor to

change. Perhaps only then may we be prepared to fully reconcile perceived oppositions. Perhaps

only then may we be prepared to truly touch space, see darkness, and hear the music in silence.

98
Implications for Further Research

Throughout the course of this document, numerous questions were raised regarding the
complex linkages among perception, creativity, various thinking systems, metaphor, theory
development, and intervention applications. Singly and in combination, each of these questions
may provide fruitful avenues for further research. If, as Hausman (1989) maintains, creative
metaphors are "the cutting edges of knowledge" (p. 231) and Rothenberg’s (1988a, 1988b)
Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation processes are the hallmark of superior performance
within diverse fields and disciplines, the conduct and outcomes of this research appear to
precipitate many additional important and exciting questions. More than a few come quite readily
to mind:

1. Are Janusian and/or Homospatial thinking prerequisites to thinking systemically?;

2. Are Janusian and/or Homospatial thinking outcomes of successful family therapy--or
should they be?;

3. Can the Holonic Perception Rating Sheet play a useful role in the development of a
coding instrument for Janusian and Homospatial thinking?;

4. How can Janusian and/or Homospatial thinking be incorporated in current state-of-the
art thinking in human ecological theory?;

5. Should emphasis be placed upon the perception component in attempting to integrate
Janusian and/or Homospatial processes with Bubolz and Sontag’s (in press) work?;

6. Should emphasis be placed upon Janusian and/or Homospatial thinking’s applicability
in addressing one or more of the current limitations identified by Bubolz and Sontag (in press)
(e.g., questions related to whether there should be anything left out of ecosystemic thinking--
should it strive to be all-inclusive or is it in need of boundaries, limits, containment)?;

7. Are men or women more likely to be Janusian or Homospatial thinkers?;

99

8. Does Homospatial thinking emerge naturally as part of human development? (Smith
and Carlsson’s 1990 work may be of particular value toward this end);

9. If Homospatial thinking develops naturally in all of us, does it tend to dissipate at a
certain age, unless actively fostered?;

10. How does Homospatial thinking impact movement through tasks associated with
transitions in individual and family life cycles?;

11. Are people who become stuck in the individual or family life cycle unable or limited
in their ability to engage in Janusian and/or Homospatial thinking?;

12. Can Janusian and/or Homospatial thinking be taught to professionals (e.g., therapists,
teachers, human ecologists) or specific clinical populations as part of an overall treatment
program (e.g., Life Skills Training)?;

13. Can Janusian and/or Homospatial thinking be developed as a teaching tool, a therapy
tool, or a conceptual tool in theory building (or all three)?;

14. Can Janusian and/or Homospatial thinking be used to assess a person’s ability to
perceive and/or think systemically?;

15. If Gestalt thinking/theory indicates that the whole is something more than the sum
of its parts, do Janusian and/or Homospatial thinking point us in the direction toward what that
something is?;

16. Can a mode of thinking that moves a step beyond Janusian and Homospatial thinking
be formulated? Specifically, what comes after Janusian thinking, Homospatial thinking, and the
Articulation process (e.g., "heterospatial thinking")?

Refinement of the materials and protocols employed in this research may be useful in (a)
admissions processes to family and child ecology and marital and family therapy training
programs; (b) assessing potential for Janusian and Homospatial thinking in order to establish a

baseline for training within these two areas of specialization; (c) education, training, and in-

100

service workshops or programs for professionals working with dysfunctional and healthy families;
((1) assessment and intervention applications within various clinical settings targeting the needs
of high-stress and dysfunctional families; and (e) developing new ways of triggering, assessing,
and applying Janusian, Homospatial, and Articulation processes. Picking up the various threads
left untouched in the course of this research may also yield valuable information. For example,
examining the content of the sensitive, insightful, and sophisticated responses designated other
nonmetaphor may serve as a primary focus in subsequent investigations.

Another possibility would be exploration of the feasibility of developing Janusian,
Homospatial, and Articulation process scales not unlike Black and Piercy’s (1991) l7-item
"Feminist Family Therapy Scale." Designed to assess the degree of feminist thinking among
family therapists, the purpose of the scale and research incorporating its use is to measure the
degree to which family therapists adopt a feminist perspective rather than a more traditional

orientation toward their work with clients.

Reflections

In developing theory and seeking its practical implications and applications, the human
and family ecologist and marital and family therapist are confronted with a task not unlike that
of the artist, the critic, and the everyday percipient or consumer of works of art. Among
numerous other things, each must attend to both the work or phenomena in its entirety and the
elements or parts of which it is composed. Preoccupation with one or the other has been
captured most graphically in ordinary language observations such as: "He can’t see the forest for
the trees" and "She’s lost sight of the ’big’ picture." This process is also analogous to that in
which the composer and the novelist engage. Individual notes are employed in the construction

of a melody and letters in the formation of words. These constructions may be seen to grow

101

more complex as melodies become parts of movements and movements parts of symphonies,
words are arranged in sentences and sentences become paragraphs, chapters, and entire volumes
of prose and poetry. Within this articulation process, each part then becomes embedded in an
expanding context which in turn becomes part to a subsequent context or whole. Within this
expanding complexity, patterning may be observed in the multiplicity of interactions among parts
and wholes.

Ideally, it is the ability to perceive and appreciate or value these complex interactive
relationships between parts and wholes which the human and family ecologist and marital and
family therapist bring to the study of human behavior. In practice, however, this ability involves
a special form of perception, an ability to see which is not developed to a particularly high level
in Western culture. It is an ability to see--an aesthetic sensibility-which the artist cultivates in
his work. The goal, then, is not to eliminate the boundaries between inner and outer, subject and
object, figure and ground, part and whole but to recognize--to see that, in many ways, these
boundaries are illusory, interchangeable, permeable, arbitrary, conventions of language, and an
endless source of opportunities for transcendance and creativity.

An aesthetic sensibility, then, involves an ability to perceive and appreciate the complex,
multi-faceted operation of parts and wholes. It is through this fundamental sensibility that human
ecology, family and child ecology, and marital and family therapy derive their essential meaning,
power, and potential for productive growth and change. An aesthetic sensibility serves as a
foundation upon which the theories, models, paradigms, perspectives, and interventions developed
within these disciplines may be constructed and implemented.

An awareness of the inseparability of subject and object and figure and ground can serve
to mirror the reality that human beings, the natural environment, the social-cultural environment,
and the human built environment are, at all times, both figure and ground, subject and object,

part and whole. In addition to conventions of language, perceptual styles, religious ideology,

102

child-rearing practices, psychophysiological limitations, and countless other factors all collude
in maintenance of artificial distinctions between these dimensions. Thus, ifI am both figure and
ground, subject and object, self and other, part and whole, I will necessarily share in receipt of
acts of both love and aggression directed toward others. As I bespoil the natural environment
(ground), it is my quality of life (figure) which suffers erosion. Since my physical being is
comprised of elements present within the natural environment, and my survival depends upon
ongoing renewal of these elements, I am, then, in a very real sense, the natural environment.

Inner and outer are one. Yet, boundaries between the two can, nevertheless, be perceived.

Epilogue

During the last week in February, 1992, as the final revisions on this dissertation were
in process, the Hershey Foods Corporation released a new commercial on national network
television. In the center of our screens we see a large Hershey milk chocolate bar positioned
horizontally and encased in its well-known dark brown and silver wrapper. As a chorus begins
singing "Take a piece of America," the wrapper is removed of its own accord to reveal the dark
brown candy bar against a creamy white background. Suddenly, the candy bar becomes
something more than itself for we see moving images within and across its surface--images of
comfort, safety, pleasure, and relaxation. These are "pieces of America" such as children and
families playing together, lovers strolling in a park, and wondrous, soothing light cascading
across pastoral scenes of animals and lush green meadows.

The message is clear. Taking a piece of a Hershey chocolate bar is equivalent to taking
a piece of America. The two are indivisible. Just as we see before us a full, complete, whole
candy bar, we also see the twelve segmented horizontal pieces or parts that comprise a whole bar-

-each piece bearing the company name in the traditional bold, block letters. The candy bar, then,

 

103

is a part and a whole within multiple dimensions. It is comprised of parts itself and it is very
much a part of America and American experience. It is a whole entity in and of itself yet it also
mirrors or reflects and contains within itself icons of an entire culture. As consumers, we take
this product into ourselves and we become a part of America. Further, if we buy one of the
many messages of this advertisement, we become whole once again when we consume it, thereby
healing our experience of being apart as opposed to being a part or a whole. And, for the
relatively small price of another Hershey bar, we can reexperience this healing process
repeatedly. It is also significant that the bar becomes a screen within our television screen upon
which images appear to be projected and, simultaneously, within which images appear to live
and breathe.

Although its motives are clearly oriented toward increasing sales of its client’s product,
Madision Avenue is, nonetheless, reminding us of our essential embeddedness. One could also
make a case, perhaps, for Madison Avenue using the fact of our essential embeddedness and our
general lack of conscious awareness of that embeddedness against us in order to sell more candy
bars! In any event, this commercial advertisement is clearly Homospatial in structure and
content--images of Americana occupying space with a candy bar accompanied by contemporary
words and music to draw in other sense modalities. It is highly evocative, creative, and
satisfying.

This presence of Homospatial process dynamics in mass media technology can be seen
as strong evidence for its potency and power. Its usefulness and potential impact is not limited,
therefore, to the academic domain. We are being exposed to Homospatial triggers in our own
living rooms! Since the Hershey Foods Corporation will doubtlessly employ sales figures as the
primary criterion for assessing the effectiveness or success of this advertisement, the ends to
which these efforts are targeted may be considered less lofty than promoting change within a

therapeutic context or enhancing the development of ecological theory building. Nevertheless,

104

we are being exposed to a way of thinking and perceiving that can be generalized to other fields
of human endeavor.

Making the complex connections that ultimately result in the purchase of a minor
consumer item, then, may be meaningfully applied to problem solving in the arts and sciences.
The assessment, identification, promotion, and enhancement of this type of creativity as a
preventitive, restorative, and curative tool within treatment and theory building domains should
be a major priority during the final decade of this century. How intriguing it is that a simple
candy bar may play an active role in preparing an entire culture for a most profound paradigm

shifi.

 

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Model of Rothenberg’s "Mutually Creative

Process of Psychotherapy"

105

.25. .m .55 o 25.8...

 

585.8... a 588... 3 a. 25.58 85.8. 0508...
2...; 58.5 .8. 8858885 E85 29.; a 588.8 88.8..

 

a... 255...... 85.8 3.8» 85888. 2.88... ... 8:885:83

>Qwh m Lfio F.— 0 >w & *0 E5. a 8.88. ...".8 .2. 2...; 85.8 82. ... 82.82 588m _

$585
5585 25222 ......5...5..5..5...
.555 59.55....

     
           

 

.8583. .o 8.5
$59....
._<_._.<mmo_20:

 

 

    
  

 

 

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

   
   

.88.... 588... 25.5...
.28: .8858 8an. 5.85 ... $85888 8: 8:88.. a 8.88. 9.585
.8888}. 8:58 3...... .o 58.5 .858 95.888 a 9.888...
52.829... 88.85.. a .5... 8.883.. ... 88528 8.552
mmDhODm—Hm ”2.8.... .2.—=88 5:98:88
5 mmSmEtk . . ... .
320889.. 5.88... 85.88
$50.50 >H_.._<Zowm mm .880... 858.....22 552....
m
m>fi<mmo .<z_n_ gmz no .85 8 >885 So; :2... 588 8;...

 

 

 

.858 85220.8 =m n 8.80 .
1 5:00am .55. :8 8:888 a 9.588... n a =8 ..8 .88... a 88 9.5888
ZO_.F<._DO_.FE< A 5...... 88:98.80 ... 8552.583 5 9.8.88 .o 88...... 8.8.90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85.8.8.5: mmeOmn—
Howufim m2h<mmo >m<§mm
.._m:8cfl_=m_m‘.mwc_8 85.... 2588 8.55:; H ZO_.—.<._DO_._.E<

85.. o. 8.888 a 2.885

mozmozmmmoz

 

 

82.8... 95.88 85
9.588. 2388.358 25;
r 8.88. .885 «82085..

  

 

 

 

 

     

_ _
65.88.... 29.; a £85
zo_h<mom.—z_

    

.2880 .o 8829... 362:5

      

 

.058. .8588;

                 

   

  

 

 

 

   
 

 

    

    
 

 

882 58882.. a 88888 8.. 5206558 .5 8:228
3:08:88 88:88:. 82.8 .588. ... 8.8.5 .858 8.8.58 a 9:588
a 358:8 .88... a. 82.822... 8832.2 5 E3. 85882 .0 8:38.58 8528—
32.588 8 89.8885
.852 ..o 55.3.52...
2 :8 o
20_._.<ADU:.E< 222.880 u .858 :58th u :85 mmmOOmn— ucfluWEQMvS
r r 8.8.6.5280 5 5205.558“. z<_m32<_. .

 

822.5

 

Appendix B

Holonic Perception Rating Sheet

106

HOLONIC PERCEPTION RATING SHEET

COMMENTS/EXCERPTS

PERCEPTION
EMPHASIS

PARKS)
AS WHOLHS)

VALUE

1 : PRESENT
0 : ABSENT

 

 

WHOLE(S)
AS PARKS)

 

PARKS)
WITHIN
WHOLE(S)

 

WHOLE(S)
WITHIN
PARKS)

 

INTERACTION
BETWEEN/AMONG
PARTS

 

INTERAC‘I'ION
BETWEEN/AMONG
PARKS) a
WHOLE(S)

. n
O

 

 

 

 

Appendix C

Color Xerox Copy of Slide Set 1

(Janmian Condition)

 

Appendix F

Color Xerox Copy of Slide 5

(Homospatial Condition)

108

 

 

110

 

Appendix G

Introductory Letter to Prospective Participants

111

14 May, 1991

Dear _____,

I am a doctoral candidate in the Department of Family and Child Ecology with a specialization
in Marital and Family Therapy at Michigan State University. I am contacting all doctoral-level
students in our Department to request their participation in my dissertation research. The time
commitment involved will be approximately 1-1/2 hours on a day convenient to your schedule.

The general focus of my study is the creativity and thinking systems unique to doctoral candidates
in family and child ecology and marital and family therapy. I believe the outcome of this work
may make an important contribution to both fields and your participation will significantly serve
that objective.

Enclosed is a brief Response Form that should require less than five minutes to complete. Would
you please take a few moments to 1) record your name, address, telephone number and best time
to contact you; 2) insert a "1" and a "2" (indicating your first and second choices) alongside the
day and time blocks that are most convenient to your schedule (or the block indicating you cannot
participate under any circumstances; and 3) return the Form to me in the enclosed, self-
addressed, stamped envelope.

Please be assured that my proposed research has been approved by the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRII-IS). All information you provide will be kept strictly
confidential. Any use of the information will be in aggregate form and no names will be attached
to any of the data. A summary of the results and conclusions sections of my work will be
provided, on request.

I regret that the only incentive I can offer you is my deep appreciation and my promise to
reciprocate if you should require volunteer participants in the conduct of your dissertation
research.

Sincerely,

Bill Abler, M.A. Don Melcer, Ph.D

Appendix H

Participant Response Form

112

Response Form

Name:

 

 

Address:

 

Phone:

 

Best time(s) to contact you:

Below is a listing of the days and blocks of times Room 300 Human Ecology will be available
during the last week of classes Spring Term, 1991. Please place a "1" and a "2" (indicating your
first and second choices) alongside the blocks that are most convenient to your schedule.

Tuesday, 5/28 Wednesday, 5/29

_ 12:30 pm - 2:30 pm _ 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm
_ 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm _ 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm
Thursday. 5/30 Friday, 5/31

_ 12:30 pm — 2:30 pm _ 8:00 am - 10:00 am
_ 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm _10:00 am -12:00 pm
_ 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm _ 12:00 pm - 2:00 pm

_ 2:00 pm - 4:00 pm
_ 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm

_ 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
_ Sorry Bill, I won’t be able to participate in your study.

I will contact you by telephone to confirm the final date and time. Please return this Form at
your earliest convenience in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided.

Appendix I

Consent Form

113

Consent Form

The dissertation research study in which you are about to participate is designed to examine the
creativity and thinking systems unique to doctoral candidates in the Department of Family and
Child Ecology.

You will be exposed to a series of 35 millimeter slides and asked to prepare written responses
to each image. Your involvement will be limited to a single session that should not exceed two
hours in length.

All results of this research will be treated with strict confidence and participants will remain
anonymous in any reports of findings. Results and Conclusions sections of the dissertation will
be made available to participants on request.

Participation in this research is entirely voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all. You
may refuse to respond to particular questions. You may also choose to terminate your
involvement at any time without penalty of any kind.

Your signature below indicates that you have read this document and freely consent to participate.

 

 

Participant’s Signature Date

Appendix L

Metaphors Created in Response to Slide Set 5

(Janusian Condition)

117

Push and pull of a rope during game of tug-of-war.
Unity of spirit.
The legal tie.

Marriage has become bondage. Marriage has become a pattern that needs changing. Marriage
has pulled them apart instead of together.

Unleash the bonds and recreate new boundaries for the marriage. Experiment with changing
family form to recreate mutual satisfaction. Marriage is a tug of war; relax "tug" and you’ll both
win.

Being tied up in knots doesn’t mean agreement. Forced revelation is NO revelation.

Unite with common purpose and build togetherness in this manner. Untie the knot so that both
can look in same direction.

Complacency is death. Sameness/invariance is non-existence.

Being uncooperative is a back to back experience.

Two friends can share openly but not be able to really live with or accept the honesty revealed
by that sharing. It may distance them and cause intrapsychic distress, as well. They may be
bound by revealed secrets.

A therapist can assist a client to reveal and look at one’s true self in a validating, accepting,
trusting environment. Confidentiality prevents dysfunctional binding. Freedom is without strings
attached. The client must be willing, open and persistent at times.

Freedom and Bound (a slave set free and a slave still bound).

Trying to push with a rope.

Cut the rope and tie it in a place where you can pull instead.

Recognize how you are bound to the significant person in your life. Turn around and face each
other-Decide together if you want to be bound together, and if so, how.

Appendix K

Metaphors Created in Response to Slide 1

(Homospatial Condition)

115

Loneliness is a dry crumbling leaf - a park bench with room only for one. Loneliness is cold -
a back turned away. Loneliness is the absence of sun - dewdrops suddenly gone dry.

Togetherness is a bench for two - the sun giving life to the dryness of autumn. Communication
is looking at one another.

Getting old is the pits. Old age and old leaves are hanging alone.

Male and female receive their being from a common root or source and do not always act or look
the same. Life is a leaf bud ready to burst forth.

Male and female can be allowed to display different shapes and forms of life without violating
their common root.

What can the leaves do? One can sever it’s tie to the branch-~or they both can wither and die.
They can expend their energy on increasing their bond to the tree--acknowledging their
separateness and improving their connection to each other.

Man and woman are connected through the reproductive process. Yet they are not facing each
other to begin to communicate about their differences.

On the branch of the tree of life we are all nourished by the trunk (commonality of existence) but
we all will form our own unique leaf and thus be separate but connected. We will all show our
own colors in the fall of life and eventually fall from life.

The leaf is only alone as it does not recognize that it still draws nourishment from the branch and
trunk and that its true beauty is only revealed by what it gives to the rest of the world through
its colors and exchange of oxygen (ideas) to the rest.

Marriage/families is/are often a tree(s), all parts are there but little interaction really occurs.

A relationship is a tree growing together, connected to all the other parts yet each leaf is separate
and unique. A web of life.

Turn toward your roots to find your connection to others.

A broken relationship is only a bent twig waiting to spring back to it’s comfortable status.
Sorrow can become a new leaf on the tree of life.

The green of youth blocks the sun from the age and maturity of the old. Sitting on either end

of a revolving bench, going in circles, headed nowhere, passing time, alone, useless and
forgotten.

116

Looking forward and backward. Families need to look Mb. forward and backward. The future
must be anticipated and planned for, but the past must be accounted for, learned from and
cherished and enjoyed. A merry-go-round does go in circles, but it is a lot of fun. Many people
can come aboard, music plays, seats move up and down and children love it. Circles are
complete and symmetrical shapes.

Marriage partners are two separate limbs on the same tree.

Branches from the same tree. Different leafs (sic) off the same branch.

118

Your past is always with you.

You don’t have to stay in the hot seat.

When you seek to help others they may consume you. (Drawing of four circles contained within
a single larger circle with the latter intersected by another circle predominately outside the
contained area)

Facts are the scissors which free us.

Sometimes when people are too closely tied to each other--one wants the other to do "exactly as
I do" or think "exactly as I think."

The images he is tied to want him to live.

A family is a can of sardines. It’s messy but flavorful and not like anything else. Each person
has a place and they get in one another’s way. A relationship is a rubber band. It needs to
stretch and not break to accommodate the contents it is holding together.

Alone together. Separate bodies moving thru space in their own orbits, passing close but never
actually touching. A conductor from the past, orchestrating the present.

Become your own conductor.

A relationship can "tie you up in knots." When you and your significant other are bound
together in this way, you can’t dance--not even with each other. The flow of life is near but one
member of the couple doesn’t even see it.

Life can tether you to a form which is restrictive. A spider’s web traps those who dare to enter.
Be aware of the silky threads-«hey are not what they seem. Pain is not only physical--the mental
anguish of those tied down is greater than other pains of physical insult.

Break away from ties which restrict and inhibit—do not sit in misery forever. Reach out for help
when feeling tied down-someone will be there to help you out.

Let’s slow the music down, let us appreciate and experience it, turn the volume down, listen to
the words, hear each note, find our own voices, listen to our neighbor, look at the future with
open eyes and courage. Allow the adults on the side to have some input, use what we can of
their experience and wisdom, allow them to join the dance, and listen to their music, too.
Loosening the bonds of connection is hard.

Untie the cord. Let go.

Commitment is the tie that binds.
Each relationship involves a cast of characters who must be heard.

119

All tied up in a knot.
Loosen the knot.

Life is a hurricane. Growth and flexibility help to weather the storm. Life is a merry go round.
Hang on for the ride. Don’t jump off or you will get hurt.

Unbinding decisions. Freeing choices.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Allman, L. R. (1982a). The aesthetic preference: Overcoming the pragmatic error.
Family Prpgés, 2_1_ , 43-56.

Allman, L. R. (1982b). The poetic mind: Further thoughts on an "aesthetic
preference." Family Process, 21, 415-428.

Andolfi, M., Angelo, C., Menghi, P. & Nicolo—Corigliano, A. M. (1983). Behind me
family mask: Therapeutic ghange in rigid family systems. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Andrews, M., Bubolz, M., & Paolucci, B. (1980). An ecological approach to the study
of the family. Marriage and FamileReview. 3, Spring/Summer.

Angelo, C. (1979). The use of the metaphoric object in family therapy. Terapia
Familiare, 5, 5-17.

Aponte, H. J. & VanDeusen, I. M. (1981). Structural family therapy. In A. S. Gurman
& D. P. Kniskern (Eds), Handbpok pf family therapy (pp. 310-360). New York:

Brunner/Mazel.

Amheim, R. (1966). prarg a psychology of art. Berkeley, University of California
Press.

Auerswald, E. H. (1971). Families, change and the ecological perspective. Fam1 y Process, _1_Q,
263—280.

Auerswald, E. H. (1985). Thinking about thinking in family therapy. Family Process, _2_4_, 1-12.

Aylmer, R. C. (1986). Bowen family systems marital therapy. In N. S. Jacobson & A.
S. Gurman (Eds), The clinical handbopk of maritfl therapy (pp. 107-148). New York:
Guilford.

Bachelard, G. (1964). The poetics of space. Boston: Beacon.

Barton, C. & Alexander, J. F. (1981). Functional family therapy. In A. S. Gurman &
D. P. Kniskern (Eds), Handbppk of family therapy (pp. 403-443). New York:

Brunner/Mazel.

Basseches, M. (1980). Dialectical schemata: A framework for the empirical study of
the development of dialectical thinking. Human Develo ment, 23:, 400-421.

120

121

Basseches, M. (1981). "Beyond closed-system problem solving: A study of meta-
systematic aspects of mature thought," Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.

Basseches, M. (1984). Dialectical thinking and adult development. Norwood, New
Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps tg an golpgy of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature. New York: Dutton.

Beavers, W. R. (1977). Psychotherapy and growth: A family systems perspective. New
York: Brunner/Mazel.

Bednar, R. L., Burlingame, G. M., & Masters, K. S. (1988). Systems of family
treatment: Substance or semantics? Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 401-413.

Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General system meog; Foundations, development,
applications. New York: George Braziller.

Billow, R. M. (1977). Metaphor: A review of the psychological literature. Psychological
Bulletin, 351, 81-92.

Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca,
New York: Cornell University Press.

Black, M. (1979). How metaphors work: A reply to Donald Davidson. In S. Sacks
(Ed.), On metaphor (pp. 181-192). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Black, L. & Piercy, F. P. (1991). A feminist family therapy scale. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, fl, 111-120.

Bodin, A. M. (1981). The interactional view: Family therapy approaches of the Mental
Research Institute. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds), Handbook of family
therapy (pp. 267-309). New York: BrunnerfMazel.

Booth, W. C. (1979). Ten literal "theses." In S. Sacks (Ed.), On metaphor (pp. 173-
174). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bopp, M. J. (1981a). "A coding manual for Basseches’ dialectical schemata
framework," unpublished manuscript.

Bopp, M. J. (1981b). "A study of the dialectical basis of psychotherapy," unpublished
manuscript.

Bopp, M. J. & Weeks, G. R. (1984). Dialectical metatheory in family therapy. Family
Process, 2, 49-61.

Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. & Spark, G. M. (1984). Invisible ldyflties: Reciprogity in
intergenerational family metapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

122

Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. & Ulrich, D. N. (1981). Contextual family therapy. In A. S.
Gurman & D. P. Kniskem (Eds), Hgdbpok 9f family therapy (pp. 159-186). New

York: Brunner/Mazel.

Boulding, K. E. (1978). Ecodynamics: A new theog of societal evolution. Beverly
Hills: Sage.

Bowen, M. (1971). Principles and techniques of multiple family therapy. In J. O.
Bradt & C. J. Moynihan (Eds), Systems merapy. Washington, D. C.: Groome Child
Guidance Center.

Bowen, M. (1974). A family systems approach to alcoholism. Addigions, 21.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason-Aronson.

Boyden, S. (1986). An integrative approach to the study of human ecology. In R. J.

Borden (Ed.), Humg galogy; A gatharing pf perspectives (pp. 3-25). College Park,
Maryland: The Society for Human Ecology.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Experimental human ecology: The implications of social
change for theory and research on socialization. Paper presented at the European
Conference on Social Psychology at Budapest, Hungary, May 6-10, 1974.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American
Psycholdgist 32 513-531.

’—’

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The mlogy of human development; Experiments by
nature and desigp. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development:
Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 2, 723-742.

Brooke-Rose, C. (1958). A gtatrgg of metaphor. London: Secker & Warburg.

Bubolz, M. M., Eicher, J. B., & Sontag, M. S. (1979). The human ecosystem: A model.
Joumflf Home mnomics, Spring, 28-31.

Bubolz, M. M. & Sontag, M. S. (1988). Integration in home economics and human
ecology. Journal of Cansumer Studies ad Homa Emnomics, 12, 1-14.

Bubolz, M. M. & Sontag, M. S. (in press). Human ecology theory. In P. Boss, W.
Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm, & S. Steinmetz (Eds), Sgprcebook of family

theories Ed methods; A sdntextaal approash. New York: Plenum.
Burke, K. (1945). A grammar of motives. New York: Prentice Hall.

Bynner, W. (1962) The way of life according to Laotzu. New York: Capricorn.

 

123

Cade, B. (1982). Some uses of metaphor. Apstralig Jodrnal of Family Therapy, 3,
135-140.

Capra, F. (1982). Tha gming paint; Ssience, sociaty and the rising culture. New
York: Bantam Books.

Capra, F. (1983). The tao pf physiss. New York: Bantam.

Capra, F. (1988). Ungpmmgn wisdam; canversations with remarkable people. New
York: Bantam.

Carpenter, W. (1986, October 23). Human ecology: The possibility of an
aesthetic science. The Bar Harbor Times, p. 12.

Carpenter, W. (1989). House logic: ME and art in human ecology. Paper presented

at the Beatrice Paolucci Symposium, Michigan State University, January 20.

Constantine, L. L. (1986). Famil aradi ' The ractice f eo in famil era
New York: Guilford.

Constantine, L. L. (1987). On Fundamental Limits of Variation in Family Systems:
Logical Extensions to the Theory of Family Paradigms. National Council on Family
Relations, Preconference Workshop of Family Theory and Methodology, November 15,
Atlanta, Georgia.

de Chardin, T. (1966). Man’s place in namra. New York: Harper and Row.

Dell, P. (1981). Paradox redux. Journal 9f Marital and Family Therapy, 127-
134.

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experieng. New York: Capricorn.

Dohr, J. H. (1984). In my opinion: An aesthetic perspective for family issues. Family
Relatipns, 33, 593-596.

Duhl, B. S. (1983). From the inside out and other metaphors: Creative and integtative
approaghes to training in systems minking. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Duhl, B. S. (1986). Toward cognitive-behavioral integration in training
systems therapists: An interactive approach to training in generic systems thinking. In F.

Piercy (Ed.), Family therapy education and supervision (pp. 90-108). New York:
Haworth.

Duhl, F. J. & Duhl, B. S. (1979). Structured spontaneity: The thoughtful art of

training in integrative family therapy at BFI. Journal pf Mar_riage and Family Therapy,
5, 59-76.

 

124

Duhl, F. J., Kantor, D., & Duhl, B. S. (1973). Learning, space and action in family

therapy. In D. Bloch (Ed.), Taghnigpag pf family psyghgmgrapy; A primer (pp. 47-63).
New York: Grune and Stratton.

Embler, W. (1966). Megphpr apa meaning. DeLand, Florida: Everett/Edwards.

Emery, F. E. (Ed.). (1969). Sy§ten_1§ thinking; Selected readings. Harmondsworth,
England: Penguin Books.

Epstein, N. B. & Bishop, D. S. (1981). Problem-centered systems therapy of the

family. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskem (Eds.), Handbook of fmily therapy (pp.
444-482). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Erickson, M. H. & Rossi, E. L. (1976). Two level communication and the
microdynamics of trance and suggestion. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, lg,
153-171.

Erickson, M. H. & Rossi, E. (1979). Hypnptharapy; An explgratory gaaflopk. New
York: Irvington.

Erickson, M. H., Rossi, E., & Rossi, S. (1976). H n i r ii : Th indu tion of
glinical hypnpsis Ed forms pf indirect suggestion. New York: Irvington.

Esterson, A. (1970). Th leav of s rin ° A stud in the di ectics of madness.
Middlesex, England: Penguin.

Falzer, P. R. (1986). The cybernetic metaphor: A critical examination of ecosystemic
epistemology as a foundation of family therapy. Fmily Process, ;5_, 353-364.

Fishman, H. C. (1983). Reflections on assessment in structural family therapy. In J.

C. Hansen (Ed.), Diagposig and assesament in family therapy (pp. 63-81). Rockville,
Maryland: Aspen.

Fox, M. W. (1980). One earth one mind. New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan.

Framo, J. L. (1981). The integration of marital therapy with sessions with family of
origin. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskem (Eds), Handbook pf family therapy (pp. 133-
158). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Gordon, D. (1978). Thera ti m hors: H1 in 0 er h lookin
Cupertino, California: META Publications.

Gruber, H. E., Terrell, G., & Wertheimer, M. (Eds). (1962). W
tp creative thinking; A §ymppsipm held at m; Univergig of Cploradp. New York:

Atherton.

Grunebaum, H. & Chasin, R. (1982). Thinking like a family therapist: A model for
integrating the theories and methods of family therapy. Jpprnal pf Maria] and Family
Therapy, October, 403-416.

125

Guerin, P. J. & Pendagast, E. G. (1976). Evaluation of family system and genogram.
In P. J. Guerin (Ed.), Family marapy; Theogg and practigg (pp. 450-463). New York:

Gardner.

Gurman, A. S. & Kniskem, D. P. (Eds.). (1981). Handbook pf fgpily merapy. New

York: Brunner/Mazel.

Gurman, A. S., Kniskem, D. P., & Pinsof, W. M. (1986). Research on the process and
outcome of marital and family therapy. In S. Garfield and A. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook

pf psyghothgrapy and pe_havipr ghapgg (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Haley, J. (1962). Whither family therapy? Family Procgg, 1, 69-100.

Haley, J. (1967a). (Ed.). Advanced techniques of hypnpsis and therapy. Selected
papers; pf Milton H, Eriggpn, M: D, New York: Grune and Stratton.

Haley, J. (1967b). Family experiments: A new type of experimentation. In G. Handel

(Ed.), The payphosogial interidr pf thg family; A sdprmdk for the study pf whglg
familigs (pp. 54-79). Chicago: Aldine.

Haley, J. (1973). Uncommon therapy: The psychiatric techniques of Milton H.
Erickson M D New York: W. W. Norton.

 

Haley, J. (1976). Problem-solving therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Haley, J. (1977). Beginning and experienced family therapists. In J. F. McDermott
Jr. & S. F. Harrison (Eds.), Psyghiatric treatment of the child (pp. 557-570). New York:
Jason Aronson.

Haley, J. (1980). Leaving hdme: The therapy df disturbed young peoplg. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Haley, J. (1984). Ordeal therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Handel, G. (1967). (Ed.). Tha payphosogial intaridr pf the family: A §odrcebook for the
study of whole families. Chicago: Aldine.

Hartman, A. (1978). Diagrammatic assessment of family relationships. §9_c_i_al_
Casework, October, 52, 465-476.

Hartman, A. (1979). Fin in f ili ' An 1 ical a roah o f il ment
in adoption. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hausman, C. R. (1989). Mgaaphdr fld a3: Interactidniam and refgrence in the verbal
and nonverbfi arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hayakawa, S. I. (1966). Foreward. In W. Embler, Mataphpr apd meaning (p. i).
DeLand, Florida: Everett/Edwards.

 

126

Heiman, J. R., LoPiccolo, L., & LoPiccolo, J. (1981). The treatment of sexual
dysfunction. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskem (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy
(pp. 592-627). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Henderson, H. (1978). Creating alternative futures. New York: Putnam.
Henderson, H. (1981). The pplitics pf the §olar agg. New York: Anchor/Doubleday.

Herrin, D. A. & Wright, S. D. (1988). Precursors to a family ecology: Interrelated
threads of ecological thought. Family Science Review, August, 1, 163-183.

Hoffman, L. (1981). Foundations of family therapy: A conceptual framework
fpr §y§t§ms changg. New York: Basic.

Holman, A. M. (1983). Family assessment; Tool§ for understanding and intervention.
Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hook, N. & Paolucci, B. (1970). Family as ecosystem. Journal pf Home Economigs, Q,
May, 315-318.

Hultsch, D. F. (1980). Implications of a dialectical perspective for research
methodology. Human Development, Q, 217-267.

Humphrey, L. L. & Benjamin, L. S. (1986). Using structural analysis of social
behavior to assess critical but elusive family processes: A new solution to an old
problem. American Paychologist, September 41 979-989.

,—,

Jacobson, N. S. (1981). Behavioral marital therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P.
Kniskem (Eds.), Handbdok of family therapy (pp. 556-591). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Jordan, J. R. (1985). Paradox and polarity: The tao of family therapy. Fmily Process,
2_4, 165-174.

Jungen, B. (1986). Integration of knowledge in human ecology. In R. J. Borden (Ed.),

Human ecology: A gathering of perspectives (pp. 2644). College Park, Maryland:
Society for Human Ecology.

Kantor, D. & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the fmily; Towgd a thflfl of family process.
New York: Harper Colophon.

Keeney, B. P. (1983a). Aesthgtipg pf ghangg. New York: Guilford.

Keeney, B. P. (1983b). Ecological assessment. In J. C. Hansen (Ed.), Diagposis and
assessment in family therapy (pp. 156-169). Rockville, Maryland: Aspen.

Keeney, B. P. & Ross, J. M. (1985). Mind in therapy: Constructing systemic family
therapies. New York: Basic Books.

127

Keeney, B. P. & Sprenkle, D. H. (1982). Ecosystemic epistemology: Critical

implications for the aesthetics and pragmatics of family therapy. Family Process, A, 1-
19.

Kelly, J. G. (1966). Ecological constraints on mental health services. American Psychologist,
2_1_, 535-539.

Kelly, J. G. (1987). An ecological paradigm: Defining mental health consultation as a
preventive service. Prevention in Human Services, 11, 1-36.

Kent, G. H. & Rosanoff, A. V. (1910). A study of association in insanity. American
Journal of Insanig, 61, 37-96, 317-390.

Kerr, M. E. (1981a). Bowen theory and therapy. In G. P. Sholevar (Ed.), m

handbook of marriage and marital therapy (pp. 143-172). New York: SP Medical and
Scientific Books.

Kerr, M. E. (1981b). Family systems theory and therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P.
Kniskem (Eds.), Handbddk pf family therapy (pp. 226-264). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Kerr, M. E. (1988). Chronic anxiety and defining a self. The Atlantic Monthly,
September, 35-58.

Klein, D. M. (1981). The problem of multiple perception in family research.
Paper presented at the Preconference Workshop on Theory Construction and Research
Methodology, National Council on Family Relations, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, October.

Koestler, A. (1978). Janus. London: Hutchinson.

Koffka, K. (1935). Pringiples of (jaggflt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace

J ovanovich.

Kogan, N., Connor, K., Gross, A., & Fava, D. (1980). Understanding visual metaphor:

Developmental and individual differences. Mpndggaphg pf the Sdcigg fpr Rggagch in
Child Developmgnt, d_5_ (1, Serial No. 183).

Kramer, C. H. (1980). Becomin a f il er ist: D vel in an inte r
approagh to working with fmilig. New York: Human Sciences Press.

Kuehl, B. P., Newfield, N. A., Joanning, H. (1990). A client based description of
family therapy. Journal of Family Psyghology, 3, 310-321.

Lankton, S. R. & Lankton, C. H. (1986). Enghgtment ad intervgntidn in family
therapy: Training in ericksonian approaches. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Laqueur, H. P. (1972a). Mechanisms of change in multiple family therapy. In C. J.

Sager & H. S. Kaplan (Eds.), Prdggess in gpoup ar_1d family tharapy. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.

 

128

Laqueur, H. P. (1972b). Multiple family therapy. In A. Ferber, M. Mendelsohn, & A.
Napier (Eds.), The DQQK 9f family tharapy (pp. 618-636). New York: Science House.

Levin, S. R. (1988). Metaphoric worlds: Conceptions of a romantic nature. New
Haven: Yale University Press.

Lieberman, S. (1979). Transgenerational analysis: The genogram as a technique in

family therapy. .19de pf Family Therapy, 1, 51-64.

Lodge, R. M. (1977). The seeming paradox of individuality. 132qu of Otto Rams
Association 12 37-43.

7—9

Lowen, W. (1982). Dichotomies of the mind: A systems science model of the mind and
personality. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Madanes, C. (1980). Protection, paradox, and pretending. Family Process, 12, 73-85.

Madanes, C. (1984). Behind the one-way mirror; Advances in the practice of strategic
therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McGoldrick, M. & Gerson, R. (1985). Genoggams in fgfly assmsment. New York: W.
W. Norton.

Melson, G. (1980). Family and environment: An ecosystem perspgive. Minneapolis:

Burgess.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phenomendldgy pf perception. New York: Humanities
Press.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1984). Eye and mind. In S. D. Ross (Ed.), Apt md its sigpificance:

An mmology of aesthetis theom (pp. 289-307). Albany, New York: State University of
New York Press.

Milbrath, L. W. (1989). Envi ionin a sus in l socie : Learnin our wa out.
Albany: State University of New York Press.

Miller, B. C., Rollins, B. C., & Thomas, D. L. (1982). On methods of studying
marriages and families. Jdurnal pf Marriage and ths Family. November, 851-872.

Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field
of family therapy. Child Developmant, 56, 289-302.

Minuchin, S. & Fishman, H. C. (1981). Family thgrapy mhnigues. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Mook, B. (1985). Phenomenology, system theory and family therapy. Journal of
Phenomenoldgicm Psychology, 16, 1-11.

 

129

Moon, S. M., Dillon, D. R., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1990). Family therapy and qualitative
research. qumal of Masital and Family Therapy, E, 357-373.

Morgan, G. W. (1968). The hdman predicament: Dissolution and wholeness. New
York: Delta.

Moran, J. D. & Sawyers, J. K. (1988). The individual system: Character, change, and
context. Home Economics FQRUM, Spring, 18-19.

Myers, B. S. (1967). A11 and sivilization. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Napier, A. Y. (1988). The fragile band: In semch pf ap gum, intimats, md enduring
marriage. New York: Harper and Row.

Newfield, N. A., Kuehl, B. P., Joanning, H., & Quinn, W. H. (in press). A mini
ethnography of the family therapy of adolescent drug abuse: The ambiguous experience.
Alcoholism Treatment (marterly.

Nichols, M. P. (1987). The self in e s stem: Ex an in the limits of famil thera
New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Olson, D. H. (1981). Family typologies: Bridging family research and family therapy.

In E. E. Filsinger & R. E. Lewis (Eds.), Assessing marriage: New behavidral
approaches (pp. 74-89). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Palazzoli, M. S., Cirillo, S., Selvini, M., & Sorrentino, A. M. (1989). Family gmss:
(fineral mddels of psychotic prpgmses in ths fmily. New York: W. W. Norton.

Papp, P. (1980). The Greek chorus and other techniques of paradoxical therapy.
Family Prdsess, L2, 45-57.

Papp, P., Silverstein, O., & Carter, E. (1973). Family sculpting in preventive work
with "well families." Family Process, 12, 197-212.

Pendagast, E. G. & Sherman, L. (1977). A guide to the genogram family systems
training. The Family, 5, 3-14.

Portmann, A. (1969). The seeing eye. In P. Shepard & D. McKinley (Eds.), m
subversive science; Essays toward an ecolpgy pf man (pp. 115-121). Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.

Ray, M. P. (1988). An ecological model of the family. Home Ecpnomics FORUM,
Spring, 9-11, 15.

Riegel, K. F. (1973). Dialectic operations: The final period of cognitive development.
Humm Develppment, E, 346-370.

 

130

Riegel, K. F. (1976). Dialectical operations of cognitive development. In J. F. Rychlak

(Ed.), Diggic: Hamanistis rationale for behavior and development (pp. 60-71). New
York: S. Karger.

Rogan, D. (1977). Partialization and totalization. Journal of Otto Rank Association,
1_2, 44-49.

Rogers, R. (1978). Metaphor; A psychoanalmic view. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

Rothenberg, A. (1979). Ths emerging goddess: Theficreartive process in art. science and
other fields. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rothenberg, A. (1982). Janusian thinking and Nobel-prize laureates. American
Journal of Psychiatgt, 1Q, 122-124.

Rothenberg, A. (1983). Psychopathology and creative cognition: A comparison of
hospitalized patients, Nobel laureates, and controls. Archives of General Psychiatm,
September, fl), 937-942.

Rothenberg, A. (1986). Artistic creation as stimulated by superimposed versus

combined-composite visual images. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59,
370—381.

Rothenberg, A. (1987). Einstein, Bohr, and creative thinking in science. Histom of
Scigncs, 25, 147-166.

Rothenberg, A. (1988a). The creative process of psychotherapy. New York: W. W.
Norton.

Rothenberg, A. (1988b). Creativity and the homospatial process: Experimental
studies. Ps chiatri linics f N Americ , 11, 443-459.

Rothenberg, A. & Burkhardt, P. E. (1984). Difference in response-time of creative
persons and patients with depressive and schizophrenic disorders. Psychological Reports,
a, 711—717.

Rothenberg, A. & Sobel, R. S. (1980a). Adaptation and cognition: An experimental
study of creative thinking. Journal pf Nervpus and Men@ Disease, 1Q, 370-374.

Rothenberg, A. & Sobel, R. S. (1980b). Creation of literary metaphors as stimulated
by superimposed versus separated visual images. Jodrnfl pf Meng Imagsg, ;4_, 77-91.

Rothenberg, A. & Sobel, R. S. (1981a). Adaptation and cognition. II. Experimental
study of the homospatial process in artistic creativity. Journal pf Nervpds apd Mental
Disease, 169, 417-423.

 

131

Rothenberg, A. & Sobel, R. S. (1981b). Effects of shortened exposure time on the
creation of literary metaphors as stimulated by superimposed versus separated visual

images. Pardapmfl apd Mot_or §kills, 53, 1007-1009.

Rychlak, J. F. (1976). (Ed.). DiaJmtic; Humanistic rationale for behavior and
develppment. New York: S. Karger.

Ryle, G. (1949). Tbs gougept of mind. London: Hutchinson’s University Library.

Sabatelli, R. M. & Mazor, A. (1985). Differentiation, individuation, and identity
formation: The integration of family system and individual developmental perspectives.
Adqlmcence, Fall, E, 619-633.

Sacks, S. (Ed.). (1979). On metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Sager, C. J. (1981). Couples therapy and marriage contracts. In A. S. Gurman &
D. P. Kniskem (Eds.), Hmdbook pf family therapy (pp. 85-130). New York:

Brunner/Mazel .

Samples, B. (1976). 'Iha metaphoric mind; A selebration pf crative mnsciqpsness.
Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Sapir, J. D. & Crocker, J. C. (Eds.). (1977). Ths sdqiaJ as; pf metaphor: Emays on the
anthropology of rhetoric. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

 

Satir, V. (1972). Family systems and approaches to family therapy. In G. D. Erickson

& T. P. Hogan (Eds.), Family therapy: An introduction to theom and technique (pp.
211-221). Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole.

Sawyers, J. & Moran, J. (1985). A systems perspective of individual development and
family functioning. Home Ecpnomics Research JournaJ, 13, June, 356-362.

Schiff, B. (1990). In Renaissance Venice, Titian was prince of painters.
Smithsonian, November, 21, 65-81.

Schwartzman, J. (1984). Family theory and the scientific method. Family Prosms, Q,
223-236.

Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1978). Paradox and

countemaradox; A new model in the therapy of the family in schizophrenic transactidn,
Elisabeth V. Burt (trans). New York: Jason Aronson.

Selvini-Palazzoli, M. S., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1980).
Hypothesizing--circularity--neutrality: Three guidelines for the conductor of the
interview. Family Process, 12, 3-12.

Shepard, P. (1969). Ecology and manna viewpoint. In P. Shepard & D. McKinley

(Eds.), _T_he subversive science: Essays toward an ecology of map (pp. 1—10). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

 

t.

132

Simon, L. (1991). Review of "The Desire of My Eyes" by W. Kemp. milligrams,
March, 21, 148-149.

Skynner, A. C. R. (1976). One flesh: Separate persons: Principles of family and
mmitaJ psychotharapy. London: Constable.

Skynner, A. C. R. (1976). Systems of family and marital psychotherapy. New York:
Brunner/Mazel. (British Edition entitled Qne flesh: Separate persons. London: Constable,

1976).

Skynner, A. C. R. (1981). An open-systems, group-analytic approach to family
therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskem (Eds.), Handbook of famil theta (pp.
39-84). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Smith, G. J. W. & Carlsson, I. M. (1990). The creative process: A functional
n m iri al 3 dies from earl childhood to mi dle e. Madison,
Connecticut: International Universities Press.

Sobel, R. S. & Rothenberg, A. (1980). Artistic creation as stimulated by superimposed

versus separated visual images. rn f Per n i and Social Ps cholo , 32,
953-961.

Stanford, W. B. (1936). Greek metaphdr. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Stanton, M. D. (1981). Strategic approaches to family therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D.
P. Kniskem (Eds.), Handbopk of family therapy (pp. 361-402). New York:
Brunner/Mazel.

Stanton, J. L. & Stanton, M. D. (1983). Family therapy and systems supervision

with the "Pick-a-Dali Circus" model. JqurnaJ of Stsategiq and Systemic Therapies, 2, 31-
39.

Steier, F. (1985). Toward a cybernetic methodology of family therapy research: Fitting
research methods to family practice. In L. L. Andreozzi (Ed.), MW
clinical practice (pp. 27-36). Rockville, Maryland: Aspen.

Steiner, R. (1986). The arts add meir mission. Spring Valley, New York: The Anthroposophic
Press.

Stierlin, H., Wirsching, M., & Weber, G. (1982). How to translate different dynamic
perspectives into an illustrative and experiential learning process: Role play, genogram
and live supervision. In R. Whiffen & J. Byng-Hall (Eds.), W
W (pp. 93-108). New York: Grune & Stratton.

Taggart, M. (1985). The feminist critique in epistemological perspective: Questions
of context in family therapy. Journm of Mmitfl and Family Therapy, 11, 113-126.

 

133

Todd, T. & Stanton, M. D. (1983). Research on marital and family therapy:
Answers, issues, and recommendations for the future. In B. Wolman & G. Striker (Eds.),

Hapdlmok of faily mmitm therapy. New York: Plenum.

Tolman, C. (1981). The metaphysic of relations in Klaus Riegel’s dialectics’ of human
development. Human Davelopment, 21;, 33-51.

Tolman, C. (1983). Further comments on the meaning of ’dialectic.’ Human
Davelqpment, 26, 320-324.

Tomm, K. (1983). The old hat doesn’t fit. The Family Therapy Networker, 1, 39-41.

Turbayne, C. M. (1970). The myt_h of metaphor. Columbia, South Carolina: University
of South Carolina Press.

Vayda, A. P. (1983). Progressive contextualization: Methods for research in human
ecology. Humm Ecology, fl, 265-281.

Warren, R. (1978). The ecological nature of perceptual systems. In E. C. Carterette
& M. P. Friedman, Handbook of perception, volums X; Percepmal ecology (pp. 3—18).
New York: Academic Press.

Watts, A. (1961) Psychotherapy east and west. New York: Vintage.

Watzlawick, P. (1976). How real is real? New York: Vintage.

 

Watzlawick, P. (1982). Hermetic pragmaesthetics or unkempt thoughts about an issue
of "Family Process." Family Prosms, _2_1, 401-403.

Watzlawick, P. Bavelas, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human

communisation: A study pf interactional pmrns, pathqlqgies ar_1d pmaddxas. New York:
W. W. Norton.

Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). thgg; principlm of prdplem
formation and problem resolution. New York: W. W. Norton.

Wedemeyer, N. & Grotevant, H. D. (1982). Mapping the family system: A technique
for teaching family systems theory concepts. Fmily Relations, 3, April, 185-193.

Weeks, G. (1977). Toward a dialectical approach to intervention. Human
Development, 20, 277-292.

Weeks, G. R. & L’Abate, L. (1979). A compilation of paradoxical methods. American
Journal of Family Therapy, 1, 61-76.

Weeks, G. R. & L’Abate, L. (1982). Pmadqxical psychotherapy; Theom and practice
with individuals, couples, and families. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

134

Weeks, G. R. & Wright, L. (1979). Dialectics of the family life cycle. The American
Journal of Fmily Therapy, 1, 85-91.

Westney, O. E., Brabble, E. W., & Edwards, E. H. (1988). Human ecology: Concepts
and perspective. In R. J. Borden and J. Jacobs (Eds.), Human ecology: Research and
applisatioms (pp. 129-137). College Park, Maryland: The Society for Human Ecology.

Wheeler, D., Avis, J. M., Miller, L. A., & Chaney, S. (1989). Rethinking family
therapy training and supervision: A feminist model. In M. McGoldrick, S. M. Anderson,

& F. Walsh (Eds.), Women in families: A framework for family therapy (pp. 135-151).
New York: W. W. Norton.

Whitaker, C. A. & Keith, D. V. (1981). Symbolic-experiential family therapy. In A. S.
Gurman & D. P. Kniskem (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (pp. 187-225). New
York: Brunner/Mazel.

Wilber, K. (1990). Eye to eye: The quest for the new paradigm. Boston: Shambhala.

Wright, S. D. & Herrin, D. A. (1988a). Conceptual issues in understanding family
dynamics: Studying the family as an ecosystem or is it the ecological study of the family?
In Borden & Jacobs (Eds.), Human ecology (pp. 138-145). College Park, Maryland:
Society for Human Ecology.

Wright, S. D. & Herrin, D. A. (1988b). Family ecology: An approach to the
interdisciplinary complexity of the study of family phenomena. Family Science Review,
November, 1, 253-281.

Wright, S. D. & Herrin, D. A. (1988c). Toward a family ecology. Home Economics
qum, Spring, 5-8.

Wynne, L. C. (1980). Paradoxical interventions: Leverage for change in individual and
family systems. In J. S. Strauss, M. Bowers, T. W. Downey, S. Fleck, S. Jackson, and
I. Levine (Eds.), The psychotherapy of schizophrenia (pp. 191-202). New York: Plenum.

Young, G. L. (1989). A conceptual framework for an interdisciplinary human

ecology. In T. Malmberg (Ed.), ACT A oecologiae hominis, international monographs
in human ecolqu, no. 1. Lund: Sweden: University of Lund.